Trump on releasing the JFK records

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I don't want to discourage you from doing whatever research you are willing to do on your own accord, but do want to point out that you are the one who interceded on W. Niederhut's behalf to defend the ridiculous claim that he made. It is in my humble opinion unreasonable for you to expect me to respond to such a complex matter with a couple of lines of text, and it is in my humble opinion also unreasonable for you to initiate such a discussion that requires considerable information in response and then jump down my throat about pouring "data dumps" on you, or expecting you to "become an expert on Russiagate."

Kevin,

     Please spare us the false humility and pseudo-erudition.

     Then study the Senate Intelligence Report on Russiagate and the Mueller Report.   The Senate Report has multiple references to GRU asset, Konstantin Kilkmnik.  You should also read Catherine Belton's history of Putin's oligarchy, (and his oligarchs' multi-decade involvement with Trump) entitled, Putin's People.

     The allegedly, "ridiculous claims," I have made about Paul Manafort's work for the Kremlin, with his GRU sidekick, Konstantin Kilkmnik, are based, partly, on those investigations.

      And, yes, Manafort did, in fact, work for the Kremlin as a foreign lobbyist, and in Ukraine as a Yanukovych political operative, long before he and Gates became Trump's 2016 Campaign Managers.

      Perhaps you can explain to the forum, in your own words, without cluttering the board with more Russiagate-denial spam, why Paul Manafort was so determined to lie to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 liaisons with Kilimnik.   (Manafort would have died in prison for his crimes, including perjury, if Trump hadn't pardoned him.)

     Also, explain why Trump (via Manafort) obstructed justice by floating a pardon to Gates, before Manafort was, ultimately, placed in solitary confinement to prevent witness tampering.

      What were Trump and Manafort so desperate to conceal from Mueller?

      I'll look forward to hearing your explanations of Manafort's perjury and obstruction of justice, in your own words.  (No YouTube videos or cut-and-pastes, por favor!)

 

Edited March 27 by W. Niederhut

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

This note is just a small addition to the avalanche of information rebutting your claims about Russiagate that Keven has laid in front of you, Sandy.  Keven: do you have an army of lawyers helping you or have you done your posts all by yourself?  You're amazing.

 On 3/26/2024 at 2:28 AM, Roger Odisio said:

Sandy:  As I said, I am no expert on this. And I have no intention of becoming one. Because of that I cannot confront what your journalists say.

 

RO: Then maybe you should not have said, several times, that you believe or suspect that the journalists who debunked Russiagate did so only because they were fooled by Russian propagandists.

Sandy: I'm no expert, but I do know what is reported in the news. And I do know what Trump says and what Putin says.

 

And I do have an opinion on Russiagate.

 

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that your anti-Russiagate journalists are influenced by Russian propaganda in left-wing alternate/fake news sites.

 

RO:  By "what is reported in the news"  I think you you mean as told by the MSM, particularly MSNBC, where Russiagate has been flogged for years and no criticism, or even questioning, of it, has ever  been permitted. And no lies told in the process, even when established, have been acknowledged or walked back. 

 

If you're looking for fake news you should probably start with these people. Are you aware of Rachel Maddow's defense in a suit challenging something she said on the air?  My show is not a news show, she said, I offer my commentary on the news.  It's my opinions, which I'm entitled to have and can't be sued for expressing. She won.  Case dismissed. Btw, the same argument was used by Tucker Carlson, when he was on Fox, against a similar suit. He won too.

 

There you have it.  What you're relying on is for the most part not verified, factual information, but rather the opinions of people that you want to believe. Frequently reported as if it were the news, despite Maddow's claim.  When the MSM told you that the "intelligence community" said Hunter Biden's laptop was fake Russian disinformation (the bogeyman again), did you believe them?

 

As far as I can tell from your (non)answers so far, you "suspect" that the journalists who dissected Russiagate for the self-serving hoax it is are influenced by "Russian propaganda" on "fake news sites" because that is what you want to believe, to fit in with the rest of your beliefs. You have offered no substantiation for your suspicion.

 

Your acceptance of William's naming Consortium News as a fake news site spewing Russian propaganda is particularly outrageous. By itsownterms, it is a "Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc."  It was founded by the estimable Robert Parry, as Keven explained. Go to the site and peruse the names of its board of directors and read some of the articles there now to see how ridiculous your charge is.  

 

You "don't know for sure" about your Russiagate opinion because you have made no attempt to rebut or even address the points made debunking it.  For example, I explained how Russia-did-it was hatched by Hillary at the 2016 Dem convention to divert attention from the damaging substance of her emails released by Assange. Then it was used to explain her defeat, and finally to underlie the current Russia, Russia fever, rivaling the McCarthy scandals of the 50s, that is the basis for the current neocon obsession with war. It is that obsession and enforcing the current version of Pax American that is now the major, deleterious effect resulting from in a belief in Russiagate.

 

You have been silent about all of this. 

 

You obviously know next to nothing about the journalists you smear as fools falling for Russian propaganda. and in particular, what they have written to substantiate their analysis.

 

You've made no attempt to identify the propaganda you're talkng about that they fell for and trace it in things they have written. That would be worth considering. Instead you merely, continuously repeat your claim that they are dupes, without substantiation.

 

  On 3/26/2024 at 2:28 AM, Roger Odisio said:

Putin recently said he had actually  preferred Hillary in the 2016 election, for a very simple reason.  He didn't like her. He didn't agree with her.  But he had worked with her for a couple of decades and thought he understood her.  He could work with her.  On the other hand, he saw Trump as utterly unpredictable.

 

 

Sandy:  That sounds precisely like propaganda designed to deflect from the charge that Putin wanted Trump to win.

 

RO:  Yes, it's possible Putin was lying about this preference in 2016. But that claim requires evidence not simply conjecture.

 

Sandy: There can be no doubt that Putin wants Trump to win. Trump has made it clear in his tweets and his speeches that he intend on removing American support from Ukraine. And that he says Putin should do "whatever the hell they want" with non-NATO countries like Ukraine.

 

RO: You have subtlely changed the terms. The question is whether *in 2016, when Trump was largely unknown as a politician*, Putin preferred Hillary. Not what he thinks now. Putin's knowledge of Hillary and fear of Trump's unreliability is a reasonable basis for preferring her.

 

Sandy:  So of course Putin wants Trump to win. And he wanted him to win in 2016 and 2020 s well.

 

RO: See above.  I should note the asymmetry of this question.  Even if it can be shown Putin actually did prefer Trump, that's along way from substantiating Russiagate.  Preferring Hillary, however, strikes a blow against the whole idea of Russiagate.

 

 

 

Roger Odisio wrote:

Quote

Keven: do you have an army of lawyers helping you or have you done your posts all by yourself?  You're amazing.

No, no army of lawyers, this is just all familiar territory to me because I've been following Russiagate blow by blow since the Hillary Clinton campaign first unleashed it against Bernie Sanders in 2016 (who I was rooting for to get the Democratic nomination for President, prior to learning that the Clinton machine had rigged the primaries against him [See Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries:  https://cosmoso.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democracy_Lost_Update1_EJUSA.pdf]). I have no particular talent, I've just been engaged in this debate on a Facebook group I started in 2015 since that time (and started a Facebook group on political assassinations the following year). I've assembled an enormous amount of information on both topics during the intervening years, and can deploy it very quickly, as is necessary with debates that take place in Facebook comments. It is said these days that I am on the left, although I am convinced that I am the equivalent of a typical 1980 era democrat who believes that free speech is just about the most important societal principal that there is, and understands the realities involved in the fact that the CIA and the military industrial complex effected a coup de tat over the democratically elected government in 1963. It's just that something strange has happened in the last forty years in which the role of the "traditional liberal" has somehow been coopted and transmuted into something unrecognizable to me. Liberals who support censorship, the CIA and war... WTF???

 

Roger, I recognize in your writing and convictions that you must have a similar story, particularly given your familiarity  with the involvement of NPIC and Hawkeyeworks with the camera-original Zapruder film, which is -- in addition to the medical evidence -- the JFKA subject that interests most interests me (as I believe that once there is mainstream knowledge of the photographic fraud, and clandestine surgical alteration of JFK's body, in conjunction with the fraudulent autopsy, a critical mass will be reached whereby the issue of high level government conspiracy will no longer be in question).

And with regard to Rachel Maddow's litigation defense that she does not present actual "news," the following is a Jimmy Dore video on the topic that I think you will be able to appreciate:

Rachel Maddow "Is Not News" Says Court Ruling!

The Jimmy Dore Show | Jul 1, 2021 | https://youtu.be/hDRoqIgUgEg?si=MRD7tNauRH0x1p-R

 

 

Edited March 27 by Keven Hofeling

[W. Niederhut]

Incidentally, while we're all waiting for Kevin Hofeling to explain Paul Manafort's perjury and witness tampering during the Mueller investigation, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) has just asked the Feds to release the classified files on Paul Manafort and Russiagate.

Final Signed Wyden Letter to DNI on 2016 Election Report Declassification (senate.gov)

 

Edited March 27 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Roger Odisio wrote:

No, no army of lawyers, this is just all familiar territory to me because I've been following Russiagate blow by blow since the Hillary Clinton campaign first unleashed it against Bernie Sanders in 2016 (who I was rooting for to get the Democratic nomination for President, prior to learning that the Clinton machine had rigged the primaries against him [See Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries:  https://cosmoso.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democracy_Lost_Update1_EJUSA.pdf]). I have no particular talent, I've just been engaged in this debate on a Facebook group I started in 2015 since that time (and started a Facebook group on political assassinations the following year). I've assembled an enormous amount of information on both topics during the intervening years, and can deploy it very quickly, as is necessary with debates that take place in Facebook comments. It is said these days that I am on the left, although I am convinced that I am the equivalent of a typical 1980 era democrat who believes that free speech is just about the most important societal principal that there is, and understands the realities involved in the fact that the CIA and the military industrial complex effected a coup de tat over the democratically elected government in 1963. It's just that something strange has happened in the last forty years in which the role of the "traditional liberal" has somehow been coopted and transmuted into something unrecognizable to me. Liberals who support censorship, the CIA and war... WTF???

 

Roger, I recognize in your writing and convictions that you must have a similar story, particularly given your familiarity  with the involvement of NPIC and Hawkeyeworks with the camera-original Zapruder film, which is -- in addition to the medical evidence -- the JFKA subject that interests most interests me (as I believe that once there is mainstream knowledge of the photographic fraud, and clandestine surgical alteration of JFK's body, in conjunction with the fraudulent autopsy, a critical mass will be reached whereby the issue of high level government conspiracy will no longer be in question).

And with regard to Rachel Maddow's litigation defense that she does not present actual "news," the following is a Jimmy Dore video on the topic that I think you will be able to appreciate:

Rachel Maddow "Is Not News" Says Court Ruling!

The Jimmy Dore Show | Jul 1, 2021 | https://youtu.be/hDRoqIgUgEg?si=MRD7tNauRH0x1p-R

 

 

KH--

What HRC did to Bernie Sanders...oooof. 

Have you ever seen Liz Cheney and HRC in the same room at the same time? No one else has either. Is Liz Cheney really just HRC with glasses and wig?

You have added a great deal of balance and color to the EF-JFKA. 

I may disagree with you at times, but then that is what a forum is for...not to be a feculent darkened echo chamber, but a room open to sunshine and many points of view.  

"Keep truckin,'" as old guys say.

 

 

 

Edited March 28 by Benjamin Cole

[Keven Hofeling]

20 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

KH--

What HRC did to Bernie Sanders...oooof. 

Have you ever seen Liz Cheney and HRC in the same room at the same time? No one else has either. Is Liz Cheney really just HRC with glasses and wig?

You have added a great deal of balance and color to the EF-JFKA. 

I may disagree with you at times, but then that is what a forum is for...not to be a feculent darkened echo chamber, but a room open to sunshine and many points of view.  

"Keep truckin,'" as old guys say.

 

 

 

I think you may be on to something there...

 

In fact, after coming up with this bit of obvious disinformation during my research of the question, I'm more sure than ever that you ARE on to something...

 

Edited March 28 by Keven Hofeling

[Matt Allison]

Isn't there a "Weirdo MAGA" forum this thread belongs in?

Edited March 28 by Matt Allison

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Isn't there a "Weirdo MAGA" forum this thread belongs in?

Matt-

Do you think what HRC/DNC did to Bernie Sanders was justifiable? 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Isn't there a "Weirdo MAGA" forum this thread belongs in?

      Yes, Matt, the thread has focused on some important historical evidence about Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia, but I notice that Kevin, Ben, and Roger have all repeatedly ignored direct questions about the Russiagate and Manafort evidence, while flooding the zone with tangential MAGA spam.

     It's beginning to resemble the MAGA devolution of the old 56 Years thread.

     Incidentally, one tell-tale sign that a person is a closet MAGAt is the rabid misogyny.

     MAGAts respond to powerful women-- Hillary, Pelosi, Liz Cheney, et.al.-- the way that demons respond to the Cross.  They start hissing, frothing at the mouth, and posting derogatory memes.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

37 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Matt-

Do you think what HRC/DNC did to Bernie Sanders was justifiable? 

I was the first Bernie supporter on the Ed Forum.

That said, Hillary got 16,914,722 votes in the Dem race and Bernie got 13,206,428.

The claim Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie is yet another hollow myth.

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I was the first Bernie supporter on the Ed Forum.

That said, Hillary got 16,914,722 votes in the Dem race and Bernie got 13,206,428.

The claim Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie is yet another hollow myth.

You must not have been paying attention. Can't imagine how you missed it. Regardless, the numbers you quoted are bullshit: See Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries:   https://cosmoso.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democracy_Lost_Update1_EJUSA.pdf

 

Edited March 28 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Yes, Matt, the thread has focused on some important historical evidence about Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia, but I notice that Kevin, Ben, and Roger have all repeatedly ignored direct questions about the Russiagate and Manafort evidence, while flooding the zone with tangential MAGA spam.

     It's beginning to resemble the MAGA devolution of the old 56 Years thread.

     Incidentally, one tell-tale sign that a person is a closet MAGAt is the rabid misogyny.

     MAGAts respond to powerful women-- Hillary, Pelosi, Liz Cheney, et.al.-- the way that demons respond to the Cross.  They start hissing, frothing at the mouth, and posting derogatory memes.

 

What a load of farcical nonsense!

I've presented you with an enormous amount of evidence, and at the same time made it clear that I am going to call you out for having no evidence at all in support your hollow narrative. You operate as if telling your little story of Russiagate is sufficient, but in the absence of any known evidence it certainly is not. Your MAGA fixation/obsession is no substitute for actual evidence, and it appears that somehow you have continued to operate as if there is some kind of value in the venomous rhetorical diatribe and vacuous partisan enmeshment in the cheap fixtures and imaginary fairytales of the likes of Rachel Maddow -- a thoroughly discredited imbecilic crackpot. If Rachel Maddow scripts are really all you have at your disposel, you should really consider calling it quits because contending with real verifiable facts supported by bona fide evidence can be an unforgiving ordeal for a thickheaded snake-oil salesman like those you seem to be attempting to emulate.

The evidence I am calling upon you to produce is much more than your stereotypical rant; I'd like to see you refer me to Court Orders, judicially admissible direct and testamentary evidence capable of withstanding standard legal objections, and the work of genuine investigative journalists (as opposed to sensationalist commentators like Rachel Maddow), such as all of those listed directly below. And I'd suggest that you engage in some actual research by evaluating the evidence they have produced, as it sets forth the standard that you are going to have to surpass, since their work soundly demolishes the Russiagate hoax that you have been so ineptly attempting to perpetrate upon us.

_____________

'MATT TALIBBI ON THE CJR STORY EXPOSING FAKE JOURNALISTS'

Usefulidiots | February 8, 2023 | https://youtu.be/QHCZE6S4LoA

With Matt Taibbi’s Twitter Files and Jeff Gerth’s new in-depth reporting for CJR exposing the years of lies spread by Russiagaters, bitter attacks from outed journalists are rolling in.

Gerth and Taibbi, who come from the old style of journalism where you fact check your work and don’t accept government officials’ claims on faith, have each shown clear, indisputable evidence of disinformation campaigns pushed by corporate reporters. And since the so-called journalists can’t argue the facts, they dig themselves a deeper hole with more lies and name-calling.

Jeff Gerth has been working as a reporter for decades and published, in the very mainstream Columbia Journalism Review, a 20,000-word report on his findings, only to be called a liar and misdirecting magician in the most self-important article by Mother Jones’ David Corn (“The true media failure is that Trump got away with it and that articles like this one that you are now reading are still necessary.”) And possibly worse than that is the near complete silence from the rest of mainstream media who, as Gerth reported, refused to follow Bob Woodward’s pleas for introspection.

They’re not silent, however, about Matt Taibbi. These corporate stenographers, either angry that Taibbi called them out for lying or jealous that they didn’t get the Twitter Files story themselves, haven’t made any substantive arguments against his findings both because they can’t, but also because they know they don’t need to. Their audiences are trained to believe them.

_____________

'VETERAN NYT JOURNALIST JEFF GERTH EXPOSES US MEDIA'S RUSSIAGATE DEBACLE'

Pushback with Aaron Maté | The Grayzone | February 16, 2023 | https://youtu.be/fCkvD7gt89A

In a new four-part series for the Columbia Journalism Review, veteran journalist Jeff Gerth documents US media's journalistic malpractice in covering Russiagate. Guest: Jeff Gerth, journalist who spent three decades as an investigative reporter at the New York Times, where he won the 1999 Pulitzer Prize.

His new four-part series about US media’s Russiagate coverage in the “Columbia Journalism Review” is called “The press versus the president.”

_____________

On January 30, 2023, Gerth published in the Columbia Journalism Review what his editor called an "encyclopedic look at one of the most consequential moments in American media history," the U.S. media's coverage of Trump's alleged role in the proven Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

_____________

'THE PRESS VERSUS THE PRESIDENT, PARTS ONE - FOUR' 

By Jeff Gerth | Columbia Journalism Review | January 30, 2023 |   https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

EDITORS NOTE: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-ed-note.php

Looking back on the coverage of Trump

JANUARY 30, 2023 By KYLE POPE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editor's Note | Part one | Part two | Part three | Part four

Seven and a half years ago, journalism began a tortured dance with Donald Trump, the man who would be the country’s forty-fifth president—first dismissing him, then embracing him as a source of ratings and clicks, then going all in on efforts to catalogue Trump as a threat to the country (also a great source of ratings and clicks).

No narrative did more to shape Trump’s relations with the press than Russiagate. The story, which included the Steele dossier and the Mueller report among other totemic moments, resulted in Pulitzer Prizes as well as embarrassing retractions and damaged careers. For Trump, the press’s pursuit of the Russia story convinced him that any sort of normal relationship with the press was impossible.

For the past year and a half, CJR has been examining the American media’s coverage of Trump and Russia in granular detail, and what it means as the country enters a new political cycle. Investigative reporter Jeff Gerth interviewed dozens of people at the center of the story—editors and reporters, Trump himself, and others in his orbit.

The result is an encyclopedic look at one of the most consequential moments in American media history. Gerth’s findings aren’t always flattering, either for the press or for Trump and his team. Doubtless they’ll be debated and maybe even used as ammunition in the ongoing media war being waged in the country. But they are important, and worthy of deep reflection as the campaign for the presidency is about, once again, to begin.

Kyle Pope was the editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review. He is now executive director of strategic initiatives at Covering Climate Now.

 

Edited March 28 by Keven Hofeling

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You must not have been paying attention. Can't imagine how you missed it. Regardless, the numbers you quoted are bullshit:

Fair enough.

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

 See Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries:   https://cosmoso.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democracy_Lost_Update1_EJUSA.pdf

 

From the linked report:

<q>

Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates. EJUSA established the upper estimate through exit polling data, statistical analysis by precinct size, and attention to the details of Democratic proportional awarding of national delegates. Even small changes in vote shares in critical states like Massachusetts and New York could have substantially changed the media narrative surrounding the primaries in ways that would likely have had far reaching consequences for Senator Sanders’ campaign. </q>

Given the upper estimate in every case that's a 368 swing, giving Bernie a 9 delegate win.

The estimates of pledged delegates that should have gone to Sanders are largely based on analyses of 11 states.  

Iowa:  1 - 3

Nevada:  1 - 4

So. Carolina:  2 - 4

Alabama:  3 - 4

Georgia:  7 - 10

Tennessee:  3 - 7

Mississippi:  2 - 3/4

Illinois:  6 - 20

Ohio:  4 - 7

Arizona:  2 - 6

California:  25 - 35

So over the 11 states the range was 56 on the low end and 104 on the high end.

What are the odds of every state hitting the high end estimate?

 

Edited March 28 by Cliff Varnell

[Keven Hofeling]

52 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Fair enough.

From the linked report:

<q>

Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates. EJUSA established the upper estimate through exit polling data, statistical analysis by precinct size, and attention to the details of Democratic proportional awarding of national delegates. Even small changes in vote shares in critical states like Massachusetts and New York could have substantially changed the media narrative surrounding the primaries in ways that would likely have had far reaching consequences for Senator Sanders’ campaign. </q>

Given the upper estimate in every case that's a 368 swing, giving Bernie a 9 delegate win.

The estimates of pledged delegates that should have gone to Sanders are largely based on analyses of 11 states.  

Iowa:  1 - 3

Nevada:  1 - 4

So. Carolina:  2 - 4

Alabama:  3 - 4

Georgia:  7 - 10

Tennessee:  3 - 7

Mississippi:  2 - 3/4

Illinois:  6 - 20

Ohio:  4 - 7

Arizona:  2 - 6

California:  25 - 35

So over the 11 states the range was 56 on the low end and 104 on the high end.

What are the odds of every state hitting the high end estimate?

 

Thank you for that breakdown. You did some very good work on that Cliff.

[Kirk Gallaway]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I was the first Bernie supporter on the Ed Forum.

uhh no Cliff, i was

heh heh

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Given the upper estimate in every case that's a 368 swing, giving Bernie a 9 delegate win.

yeah, that's what I noticed, what a nail biter!.----how convenient!

I was thinking, does anyone have 11, 720 votes?

jeje jej jej jej jej     (that's Spanish)

 

3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You must not have been paying attention. Can't imagine how you missed it. Regardless, the numbers you quoted are bullshit:

Yeah man, bullshit!

Cliff:Fair enough.

 

I understand you're being gracious here Cliff. But the popular number of votes you recited are not bullsh-t. Under even alleged tampering they are more accurate than a delegate count which is  extrapolated from popular vote, but is even less exact because certain states have winner take all  laws that distort  the electoral vote totals even further..

Obviously, he's  making an argument for the electoral college over the popular vote.

Must be from a red state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop being such a Bernie traitor, Cliff!

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cliff Varnell]

22 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

uhh no Cliff, i was

Gotta link?

22 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

heh heh

yeah, that's what I noticed, what a nail biter!.----how convenient!

I was thinking, does anyone have 11, 720 votes?

jeje jej jej jej jej     (that's Spanish)

 

Yeah man, bullshit!

Cliff:Fair enough.

 

I understand you're being gracious here Cliff.

I think the report makes a good case for some over-counting of Hillary's primary votes, but nothing near 3.7 million.

22 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

But the popular number of votes you recited are not bullsh-t. Under even alleged tampering they are more accurate than a delegate count which is  extrapolated from popular vote, but is even less exact because certain states have winner take all  laws that distort  the electoral vote totals even further..

Obviously, he's  making an argument for the electoral college over the popular vote.

No, it's about the delegate count.  The odds against total high end estimate accuracy are astronomical.

22 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Must be from a red state.

Stop being such a Bernie traitor, Cliff!

Still have my Sanders '16 poster in my window.  But what's right is right.