Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

Only in a Trumpian, post-fact world could someone respond to a post containing, inter alia, "I don't know whether or not they're lying... Do you think they are lying? If so, what... makes you think so? And if you do think they're lying... if you believe [they are] lying..." with "We're not allowed to consider whether they're lying..."

No deflection here, no sirree bob.

Only in an SJW, post-sense world could someone say "I believe this and I am extremely proud to say I have no evidence whatsoever for it. Because, you know, it suits my agenda."
So, to sum your argument: you got nothing.

ligerdub

The last time a President wanted to curtail the influence of the CIA he ended up being murdered, what an odd coincidence. They are rotten to the core, and have been for decades.

Count Dooku

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bear in mind we're not just talking about the CIA; we're talking about all seventeen intelligence agencies. So, again: if you believe the entire intelligence community (did you look that up yet?) is lying, do you believe that they're lying to or on behalf of the President? And why do you believe that?

Do you mean that Coastal Guard Intelligence is capable to solving who hacked DNC server?
From one side we have statement without any evidence and very good reason to lie about Russian hackers
On second side we have

• statement from Assange
• statement from Wikileaks operative who personally met informer
• analysis from former senior intelligence officers who don't believe CIA

Anyway - good video that most of Americans outside of big cities don't believe to Democrats and their biased media

Christy42

osmiumartist wrote: »

Only in an SJW, post-sense world could someone say "I believe this and I am extremely proud to say I have no evidence whatsoever for it. Because, you know, it suits my agenda."
So, to sum your argument: you got nothing.

First time I have heard Trump called an SJW:p.

Seriously it is kinda hard to argue that people don't have enough evidence when Trump is in power. I agree it should be supplied but the sudden fascination for evidence from the right is hilarious to watch.

osmiumartist

Christy42 wrote: »

Seriously it is kinda hard to argue that people don't have enough evidence when Trump is in power. I agree it should be supplied but the sudden fascination for evidence from the right is hilarious to watch.

Who's on the right? Oh we can just have the entire debate here run on assertions then can we? You actually want the same standards here as Breitbart?
"Something similar happened once so it's OK now..."

Christy42

osmiumartist wrote: »

Who's on the right? Oh we can just have the entire debate here run on assertions then can we? You actually want the same standards here as Breitbart?
"Something similar happened once so it's OK now..."

I specifically said it wasn't ok. I have specifically said repeatedly that I am waiting for the evidence.

I just note that there are a fair few shouting for evidence who haven't been so worried about it in the past. Quoting may or may not have been unfair as I can't remember any specific examples of you not needing evidence but it has certainly been a strong theme from Trump supporters with regards to millions of immigrants voting when they shouldn't have, Hillary being on deaths door with all the illnesses she was supposed to have, anything she was close to was insanely corrupt etc.

Heck I haven't even checked back to see if you are a Trump supporter.

In fact my assertion that evidence should be provided is even the part you quoted! Come on, that isn't a serious counter argument.

osmiumartist

Christy42 wrote: »

I specifically said it wasn't ok. I have specifically said repeatedly that I am waiting for the evidence.

I just note that there are a fair few shouting for evidence who haven't been so worried about it in the past. Quoting may or may not have been unfair as I can't remember any specific examples of you not needing evidence but it has certainly been a strong theme from Trump supporters with regards to millions of immigrants voting when they shouldn't have, Hillary being on deaths door with all the illnesses she was supposed to have, anything she was close to was insanely corrupt etc.

Heck I haven't even checked back to see if you are a Trump supporter.

In fact my assertion that evidence should be provided is even the part you quoted! Come on, that isn't a serious counter argument.

But you were talking about people here and the "irony" of them doing x and y! Now you're claiming you don't know who you're talking about and you can't be bothered to find any of them?
Powerful, powerful argument!

Christy42

osmiumartist wrote: »

But you were talking about people here and the "irony" of them doing x and y! Now you're claiming you don't know who you're talking about and you can't be bothered to find any of them?
Powerful, powerful argument!

Stop misrepresenting my argument.

I said I could not remember if you had held such a position.

I gave the example of the illegal immigrants voters. This was Trump himself. Amerika and My Little Pony also exprrssed those views here. Hank Scorpio posted about the birther conspiracy the other day and again this was Trump for years.

As for the health claims they were made on here quite a while ago but are pretty widespreadhttps://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/709081/Hillary-Clinton-health-US-presidential-election-year-vascular-dementia-claim/amp?client=ms-android-h3g-ie. Again nothing backing them up.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know whether or not they're lying.

osmiumartist wrote: »

Only in an SJW, post-sense world could someone say "I believe this and I am extremely proud to say I have no evidence whatsoever for it. Because, you know, it suits my agenda."

It's a pretty weak form of argument, pretending that someone has said something in order to disagree with it.

Hank Scorpio

Some interesting maps

Clinton - https://i.sli.mg/4tG354.png
Trump - https://i.sli.mg/efqo9B.jpg

FreudianSlippers

osmiumartist wrote: »

and lying to the American people is the CIA's entire purpose? You sure about that?

Where did I say that again?

FreudianSlippers

osmiumartist wrote: »

Deflection? Laughable. Who cares "what they are saying" if it's lies, with no evidence whatsoever to back it! We should focus on "what creationists are saying" now too should we? What about "focus on what the flat earthers are saying"?
No, sorry, I'm not having such a woeful attempt at evasion. We're not allowed to consider whether they're lying because that's "changing the subject away from what it is they're saying."
That's pretty close to the worst one I've ever heard tried online TBH.

I think you have this "debating" thing very confused.

If the CIA, White House and FBI are all making the same allegation, based on facts, the onus is on you to prove they are lying; not on us for believing them.

You seem to be either a victim of argumentum ad nauseam or are attempting to fallaciously post in this thread with the agenda to reach argumentum ad nauseam.

ligerdub

Surely the onus is on backing up the facts?

FreudianSlippers

ligerdub wrote: »

Surely the onus is on backing up the facts?

I don't believe the CIA or the FBI are answerable to a few posters (presumably Irish citizens and residing in Ireland) who believe there is a conspiracy with regard to alleged lies in relation to their statements.

If you have factual evidence that these organisations are not telling the truth, then you are welcome to present same; until such a time, I reserve your opinions as both unfounded and conspiracy theory.

ligerdub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't believe the CIA or the FBI are answerable to a few posters (presumably Irish citizens and residing in Ireland) who believe there is a conspiracy with regard to alleged lies in relation to their statements.

If you have factual evidence that these organisations are not telling the truth, then you are welcome to present same; until such a time, I reserve your opinions as both unfounded and conspiracy theory.

That's a totally unreasonable assertion in my opinion.

The subtle message here is that the CIA and the FBI aren't prone to lying or deception, when they have historically been probably one of the most guilty organisations of that in the world over the years.

Amerika

It keeps getting better every day. The reasons for Clinton’s loss has an interesting timeline. First it was Comey, then the Russians, then Loretta Lynch, then Fake news, then white women’s “internalized misogyny,” and now “suppression” of the vote because of new Voter ID laws. What will be the excuse tomorrow?

I was watching MSNBC this morning and they showed Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers before the reports on email leaks (40.0% if I recall correctly) and her actual outcome (40.2% if I recall correctly). They theorized that perhaps the leaks increased her numbers by .2% (in a sarcastic way).

Funny in all this is no talk from democrats that it might have been Hillary herself responsible for her loss.

The Electoral College will elect Trump president today. Deal with it.

Hank Scorpio

http://www.270towin.com/live-2016-presidential-election-vote-of-electors/

Trump will hit 270 in a few minutes when the Texas electors cast, no surprises at all.

Hank Scorpio

Faithless elector count, some reports of electors changing Clinton votes. No surprises overall really after all the media talk the last week

Clinton: 3+
Minnesota elector refuses to vote Clinton, but is replaced by another elector
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-19/first-faithless-elector-emerges-minnesota-refuses-vote-hillary-clinton
Maine elector tries to vote Bernie, but reverted back to Clinton
http://latestnewsheadlines.ddns.net/news/democratic-maine-electors-vote-for-us-sen-bernie-sanders-ruled-improper-he-switches-vote-to-hillary-clinton
One or more Colorado electors try to vote Kasich, but reverted back to Clinton
https://twitter.com/MAGAtrump5/status/810934812462546944

Trump: 0

PopePalpatine

IIRC there's also a pro-Bernie elector in Washington who was planning on voting against Hillary, probably due to the DNC scandal.

Hank Scorpio

https://www.facebook.com/FOX7austin/videos/vb.125200554188098/1387893071252167/?type=3&theater

Texas live stream, it should put Trump over the 270

Hank Scorpio

3 electors vote Colin Powell and 1 for an one for Faith spotted eagle in Washington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/electoral-college-donald-trump_us_58581038e4b08debb78a05e8

Hank Scorpio

All over, Trump is officially elected.

ligerdub

Glorious.

I look forward to the next thread where somebody puts up the hope of him dying before inauguration or some equally mental statement (without much in the way of criticism of course).

Hank Scorpio

ligerdub wrote: »

Glorious.

I look forward to the next thread where somebody puts up the hope of him dying before inauguration or some equally mental statement (without much in the way of criticism of course).

The next thing will be the Russia garbage going full scale.

Pretty funny there was more faithless electors against Clinton than Trump after all the shill "celebrities" and Podesta were pushing for it.

Hopefully Merkel get's fecked out too after what happened today.

Hande hoche!

ligerdub wrote: »

Glorious.

I look forward to the next thread where somebody puts up the hope of him dying before inauguration or some equally mental statement (without much in the way of criticism of course).

Imagine the next great "hope" will be for impeachment.

ligerdub

Ah yes, forgot about that option.

At some point these guys will be tired of losing.

I see that Blindboy Boatface was on TV again tonight. He was giving a spiel on "post-truth" being the word of the year and what it means. To me it is the absolute peak of how low rent the sorts that were on the wrong side of the major votes this year are. It's described as a sense of "the facts don't matter", what a load of bollox! The extremely thinly veiled story here is that "we know the reality, the idiots voted on lies, we're better than you". It just couldn't be any other reason could it.

Count Dooku

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Imagine the next great "hope" will be for impeachment.

CNN proposed today that Senate and house should reject votes of electors

The electoral votes will be officially counted on January 6, when Congress returns. Vice President Joe Biden will preside over the count.
Lawmakers can technically object -- in writing, with objections signed by at least one House and one Senate member -- to individual electoral votes or entire states' results. If the House and Senate support that objection, the vote or votes in question are thrown out. But that has never happened.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/electoral-college-donald-trump-vote/index.html

or it will be something else

ligerdub

Christ. I mean ****ING HELL, can they not just give it up?

Hank Scorpio

ligerdub wrote: »

Christ. I mean ****ING HELL, can they not just give it up?

Never, thankfully most people are awake to the narrative and lies now.

The democrats have made a complete fool of themselves.

Hank Scorpio

This is hilarious

Inquitus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Never, thankfully most people are awake to the narrative and lies now.

The democrats have made a complete fool of themselves.

Most people on a global scale recognise that Trump is not fit to be president, in fact most American Voters felt the same given Hillary won the popular vote by close to 3m. His conflicts of interest, his cabinet picks, his narcissistic personality, nothing about him says fit to lead.

FreudianSlippers

ligerdub wrote: »

Christ. I mean ****ING HELL, can they not just give it up?

Are you even a US citizen or lawful resident?

Riva10

Inquitus wrote: »

Most people on a global scale recognise that Trump is not fit to be president, in fact most American Voters felt the same given Hillary won the popular vote by close to 3m. His conflicts of interest, his cabinet picks, his narcissistic personality, nothing about him says fit to lead.

And is Hillary Clinton any more suited.?

FreudianSlippers

ligerdub wrote: »

That's a totally unreasonable assertion in my opinion.

The subtle message here is that the CIA and the FBI aren't prone to lying or deception, when they have historically been probably one of the most guilty organisations of that in the world over the years.

In fairness, your opinion is little more than a wild conspiracy theory unsupported by any evidence or fact. There is a forum for that on boards.ie, I just don't think that it's this one.

FreudianSlippers

Riva10 wrote: »

And is Hillary Clinton any more suited.?

Merely on political experience, I would argue the answer is yes.

Until the nomination of Trump, I was registered as a Republican and had there been a better Republican candidate I would not have voted for Clinton. I have to be honest, I struggled in the primaries as well though given the field all had significant negatives to my political leanings.

nhunter100

Inquitus wrote:

Most people on a global scale recognise that Trump is not fit to be president, in fact most American Voters felt the same given Hillary won the popular vote by close to 3m. His conflicts of interest, his cabinet picks, his narcissistic personality, nothing about him says fit to lead.

Mmmm... the American people had a great choice Clinton vrs Trump. 'Nothing about him says fit to lead' yet he's the President elect. Guess alot of folks are going to have to suck it up for the next 4 years providing he manages not to get assassinated by a 'snowflake' or impeached.

FreudianSlippers

nhunter100 wrote: »

Mmmm... the American people had a great choice Clinton vrs Trump. 'Nothing about him says fit to lead' yet he's the President elect. Guess alot of folks are going to have to suck it up for the next 4 years providing he manages not to get assassinated by a 'snowflake' or impeached.

I think impeachment is a hell of a lot more likely to be honest.

However, that aside, I think that no matter who it is that is President-elect, the accusations of Russian ties and/or hacking must be investigated thoroughly.

nhunter100

FreudianSlippers wrote:

However, that aside, I think that no matter who it is that is President-elect, the accusations of Russian ties and/or hacking must be investigated thoroughly.

Of course an investigation should happen, although personally I think nothing will come of it. More pressing matters are coming to the fore.

ligerdub

I never made any claims that aren't supported by claims already accepted by the CIA themselves.

Their actions over the years reflect the sort of thing they are prepared to do, including attempted (and indeed successful) killings of heads of state. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.

K-9

Well we shouldn't really believe Russian denials either if we are going down the spy agencies are lying, double crossing scoundrel lines!

ligerdub

K-9 wrote: »

Well we shouldn't really believe Russian denials either if we are going down the spy agencies are lying, double crossing scoundrel lines!

Agreed.

Amerika

The mainstream media for over a month have been reporting on mass Republican electoral college elector defections from Trump. But the results are in. Trump secured 304 electoral votes. It amounted to 2 fewer than he earned on election day. But eight electors tried to defect from Hillary Clinton. Clinton secured 227 which was 5 fewer than she earned on election day. Three Democratic electors tried to vote for candidates other than Clinton but were disallowed because of state rules binding them to the statewide popular vote winner. Seems the mainstream media is the main culprit of ‘Fake News.’

I remember back in 2008 many in the mainstream media were writing epitaphs on the demise of the Republican party. But under president Obama Democrats have lost 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats in Congress, 12 governorships, 30 state legislative chambers, more than 900 state legislative seats, and now the presidency.

And since the election many of the high ranking Democrats are doubling down on commitments to the reasons for their losses. Sometimes it seems true that you can’t fix stupid.

Inquitus

Amerika wrote: »

Sometimes it seems true that you can’t fix stupid.

Indeed, and vast swathes of the American populace are exactly that, when people are too stupid to vote for their best interests, educate themselves on the issues, or be able to spot fake news spread on facebook, this is what you get.

m1ck007

Seems like democrat sympathisers are labelling anything pro trump as fake news and anything negative about clinton fake news also.

FreudianSlippers

Amerika wrote: »

I remember back in 2008 many in the mainstream media were writing epitaphs on the demise of the Republican party.

I would argue that the traditional GOP is truly dead when you look at the shift to more-and-more conservative orthodoxy over the past decade or two. Trump's campaign was a prime example of this focus on social conservatism under the guise of economic grievance as opposed to the traditionally economically guided policy of the GOP (whereby there was room for deviation from social policy in the past, so long as economic policy - particularly the 'small government' ideals - were followed).

The fact that Trump's social conservatism trumped (for lack of a better phrase) conservative economics from an early stage in the primaries this year shows a growing gap between the "Whig-Republicans"/"Yankee Republicans" and the current batch of Republicans backing Trump. The fact is that Trump's economic policy is inconsistent with both itself and his social policy; but the Trump supporters don't seem to understand or, worse, care.

I would argue this is evident in both the election of Trump on an untenable economic platform, as well as the "success" of the Republican party in enticing non-educated voters; historically, the GOP would have cleaned up with college-educated voters.

I have a feeling that both the Democratic party and Republican party will look significantly different in 10 years time, but the Republican party may be in for a split before the next Presidential election depending on what happens in the next 4 years. I do not think traditional GOP voters are necessarily sharing the same economic values as the Democrats - who appear themselves to be polarising to an economic leftist position.

FreudianSlippers

m1ck007 wrote: »

Seems like democrat sympathisers are labelling anything pro trump as fake news and anything negative about clinton fake news also.

Fake news is fake news: it either is or it isn't.

K-9

Stop video dumping please.

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would argue that the traditional GOP is truly dead when you look at the shift to more-and-more conservative orthodoxy over the past decade or two. Trump's campaign was a prime example of this focus on social conservatism under the guise of economic grievance as opposed to the traditionally economically guided policy of the GOP (whereby there was room for deviation from social policy in the past, so long as economic policy - particularly the 'small government' ideals - were followed).

The fact that Trump's social conservatism trumped (for lack of a better phrase) conservative economics from an early stage in the primaries this year shows a growing gap between the "Whig-Republicans"/"Yankee Republicans" and the current batch of Republicans backing Trump. The fact is that Trump's economic policy is inconsistent with both itself and his social policy; but the Trump supporters don't seem to understand or, worse, care.

I would argue this is evident in both the election of Trump on an untenable economic platform, as well as the "success" of the Republican party in enticing non-educated voters; historically, the GOP would have cleaned up with college-educated voters.

I have a feeling that both the Democratic party and Republican party will look significantly different in 10 years time, but the Republican party may be in for a split before the next Presidential election depending on what happens in the next 4 years. I do not think traditional GOP voters are necessarily sharing the same economic values as the Democrats - who appear themselves to be polarising to an economic leftist position.

The Trump phenomena is an outlier. If I could point to only one thing Trump said that won him the election, it would be this: "We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it." Although much of this could be considered traditional Democratic policies, I think it resonated with people because it was teamed with a level of fiscal responsibility. Obama spent trillions and originally promised to only spend on shovel ready projects. But it didn’t turn out that way and the money primarily went to things managed by political cronies (IMO), it didn't create sustainable jobs except in the government sector, and only added to the nation's deficit. Democrats have been continually losing the middle class for 8 years now, as they have become the party of elitists, leftists, minorities and freaks. Conservatives have found the correct mix, even if it has moved from their core principles, and moved more towards social conservatism because that is what appeals to the voters. And political parties continually change. I have heard this a lot lately... "Today's Republicans are yesterday's Democrats... And today's Democrats are yesterday's Socialists."

Riva10

Inquitus wrote: »

Indeed, and vast swathes of the American populace are exactly that, when people are too stupid to vote for their best interests, educate themselves on the issues, or be able to spot fake news spread on facebook, this is what you get.

We do not have to look at America for stupid. Look closer to home (Éire) Look at what we have elected to lead us in goverment.

oscarBravo

Riva10 wrote: »

We do not have to look at America for stupid. Look closer to home (Éire) Look at what we have elected to lead us in goverment.

Oh, I dunno. Whatever else you can say about our government, it doesn't appear to be a naked and shameless kleptocracy.