Have a break, have a Chit Chat - Page 24

@D What you feel about Corbyn?

Originally posted by: charminggenie

@K- This reminds me of that bit with Mitt Romney and Obama..former named Russia as the biggest threat to US and then democrats laughed at him..few years later, guess who is crying foul?

If these guys will continue they might just handover Trump another term. Haven't learnt their lessons at all.

Yeah, there is that. But it's not news (at least to me) that liberals (at least in US) are the biggest hypocrites of this world.

IMO, Trump and people like Trump will win not because liberals are stupid but mainly because of feelings such as nationalism, protectionism and the dislike/distrust for radical Islam that is fanning out across the western civilization now. These feelings were probably always there but they are more pronounced now. Again, my opinion. Call it xenophobia, Islamophobia or what you will, but as long as ISIS is there (and it is not easy to eradicate ISIS) random attacks will continue and fear and loathing will grow. Those politicians who come out and call a spade a spade have a bright future.

If Russia did interfere in US elections, it is like karma. We finally know what every other country in the world feels.

However, the bigger question is - should our government still stand if there was interference.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

However, the bigger question is - should our government still stand if there was interference.

Based on everything that was reported so far, looks like there is some evidence to suggest that Russians tried to interfere before the elections by hacking into Podesta's emails some of which were released by Wikileaks. There is speculation but no concrete evidence to support any allegations that Trump's associates were involved with the Russians.There is zero evidence that Trump himself was involved in any kind of collusion with the Russians; at least no more than Hillary and/or Obama's other government officials as far as talking with Russians is concerned. That lack of evidence is in spite of Obama trying everything under his power to "snoop" on Trump.

Also, there is no correlation between what Wikileaks reported and how Americans voted. Idiots like Comey might say that Wikileaks "influenced" the voters but unless they are mind-reading there is no good statistical process to measure "influence". In fact, all the exit polls predicted a landslide win for Hillary.

To answer your question - hell yeah! But of course that wouldn't stop democrats and their supporters from trying, from continuing to "resist" and from continuing to clutch at straws.They got nothing better to do than flogging a dead horse.

It's a wonder how any work gets done in this country's capital.

IF Russians tried to interfere, BUT there was no collusion from Trump's side - why didn't he just let the investigation go on.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

why didn't he just let the investigation go on.

Firing Comey is not the same as stopping the investigation. How? The proof is in the pudding. There is now a special independent counsel to investigate the Russian angle. Till this counsel comes back with its findings,you would think the media and liberals would shut up and take their medication. But no! That's not happening.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Based on everything that was reported so far, looks like there is some evidence to suggest that Russians tried to interfere before the elections by hacking into Podesta's emails some of which were released by Wikileaks. There is speculation but no concrete evidence to support any allegations that Trump's associates were involved with the Russians.There is zero evidence that Trump himself was involved in any kind of collusion with the Russians; at least no more than Hillary and/or Obama's other government officials as far as talking with Russians is concerned. That lack of evidence is in spite of Obama trying everything under his power to "snoop" on Trump.

Also, there is no correlation between what Wikileaks reported and how Americans voted. Idiots like Comey might say that Wikileaks "influenced" the voters but unless they are mind-reading there is no good statistical process to measure "influence". In fact, all the exit polls predicted a landslide win for Hillary.

To answer your question - hell yeah! But of course that wouldn't stop democrats and their supporters from trying, from continuing to "resist" and from continuing to clutch at straws.They got nothing better to do than flogging a dead horse.

It's a wonder how any work gets done in this country's capital.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

also, unless someone's a monk who doesnt get influenced by anything, it's more likely than not that people would have been influenced by the constant stream of negative DNC/ Hillary press, thanks to russian hacking. If that got even 1 in 200 people to switch their votes, it would have amounted to a swing of 1 percent, enough for her to take the electoral college as well.

so not having an iron-clad statistical measure does not mean we should suspend judgment. Gotta use the mind and exercise good judgment you know.😆

in other words, no proof, but you are saying let that not stop people from taking your word for it,

got it. 😊

dude, if we are really talking about constant stream of negative press, nothing beats the mainstream media's bias against Donny boy! it started years back and the rhetoric and lies smearing him are now reaching a crescendo.

if it's good judgment we are talking about, stats be damned for a minute, explain how the Wikileaks "influence" beats the "Access Hollywood tapes" influence.

with that line of thinking, we are venturing into some social science BS, where anything goes.

Hindsight 2020

Watched Sense and Sensibility yesterday. Mr Palmer is now one of my all time favorite characters... Hugh Laurie 😆

One of my favorite movies now