(07-19-2017 11:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:58 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:44 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  So how can you tell if Postal Service didn't destroy Trump campaign litterature the campaign paid for to be sent out. Seems I remember a carrier had dumped a large amount of it in a dumpster and was later traced back to Him in I believe California. I know its illegal and a federal offense for doing it but I'm sure its been done.

Oh, yeah. Forgot about that.

Most likely because it never happened. Either of you two have a link for this?

You may be thinking of the fake news story about an Ohio postal worker dumping trump absentee ballots that never actually happened.

Maybe so, but that doesn't change the reality of the linked article.

Right...the reality that a 20-year old practice MIGHT run afoul of the Hatch Act and that the USPS has said they will change their policy on if so.

And just to be clear on what really happened here, the USPS let workers have time off without pay to work on campaigns. That's pretty much the gist of this.

(07-19-2017 11:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 11:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:58 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:44 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  So how can you tell if Postal Service didn't destroy Trump campaign litterature the campaign paid for to be sent out. Seems I remember a carrier had dumped a large amount of it in a dumpster and was later traced back to Him in I believe California. I know its illegal and a federal offense for doing it but I'm sure its been done.

Oh, yeah. Forgot about that.

Most likely because it never happened. Either of you two have a link for this?

You may be thinking of the fake news story about an Ohio postal worker dumping trump absentee ballots that never actually happened.

Maybe so, but that doesn't change the reality of the linked article.

Right...the reality that a 20-year old practice MIGHT run afoul of the Hatch Act and that the USPS has said they will change their policy on if so.

And just to be clear on what really happened here, the USPS let workers have time off without pay to work on campaigns. That's pretty much the gist of this.

No, pretty much the gist of it is that they were off work yet still paid with union funds.

Heck, I could take off plenty of time from work to do all kinds of things if I still got paid.

(07-19-2017 10:33 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:58 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:44 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  So how can you tell if Postal Service didn't destroy Trump campaign litterature the campaign paid for to be sent out. Seems I remember a carrier had dumped a large amount of it in a dumpster and was later traced back to Him in I believe California. I know its illegal and a federal offense for doing it but I'm sure its been done.

Oh, yeah. Forgot about that.

Most likely because it never happened. Either of you two have a link for this?

You may be thinking of the fake news story about an Ohio postal worker dumping trump absentee ballots that never actually happened.

It better be a lefty link or Ole Tommy here won't click on it.

you mean like moonbat.org?

(07-19-2017 11:59 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 11:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 11:46 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:58 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Oh, yeah. Forgot about that.

Most likely because it never happened. Either of you two have a link for this?

You may be thinking of the fake news story about an Ohio postal worker dumping trump absentee ballots that never actually happened.

Maybe so, but that doesn't change the reality of the linked article.

Right...the reality that a 20-year old practice MIGHT run afoul of the Hatch Act and that the USPS has said they will change their policy on if so.

And just to be clear on what really happened here, the USPS let workers have time off without pay to work on campaigns. That's pretty much the gist of this.

No, pretty much the gist of it is that they were off work yet still paid with union funds.

Heck, I could take off plenty of time from work to do all kinds of things if I still got paid.

Funds from the union Letter Carrier Political Fund, the union’s PAC. Totally legal.

They're saying the Hatch Act was violated because the postal service had to pay overtime to the other workers covering for them. That's dubious at best IMHO.

(07-19-2017 12:47 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:33 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:58 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:44 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  So how can you tell if Postal Service didn't destroy Trump campaign litterature the campaign paid for to be sent out. Seems I remember a carrier had dumped a large amount of it in a dumpster and was later traced back to Him in I believe California. I know its illegal and a federal offense for doing it but I'm sure its been done.

Oh, yeah. Forgot about that.

Most likely because it never happened. Either of you two have a link for this?

You may be thinking of the fake news story about an Ohio postal worker dumping trump absentee ballots that never actually happened.

It better be a lefty link or Ole Tommy here won't click on it.

you mean like moonbat.org?

Well, since it never happened, more like moot.com.

Well, Hillary didn't deliver.

#schadenfreude
#tearsonNov9th

(07-19-2017 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 12:47 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:33 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:58 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Oh, yeah. Forgot about that.

Most likely because it never happened. Either of you two have a link for this?

You may be thinking of the fake news story about an Ohio postal worker dumping trump absentee ballots that never actually happened.

It better be a lefty link or Ole Tommy here won't click on it.

you mean like moonbat.org?

Well, since it never happened, more like moot.com.

...and since you can't prove it didn't happen without linking to a lefty website, it's more like tomisfullofcrap.com.

(07-19-2017 02:00 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 12:47 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:33 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Most likely because it never happened. Either of you two have a link for this?

You may be thinking of the fake news story about an Ohio postal worker dumping trump absentee ballots that never actually happened.

It better be a lefty link or Ole Tommy here won't click on it.

you mean like moonbat.org?

Well, since it never happened, more like moot.com.

...and since you can't prove it didn't happen without linking to a lefty website, it's more like tomisfullofcrap.com.

Well, you still haven't proven that you didn't rape and murder that woman. So there's that I guess.

Prove it didn't happen? Unbelievable.

(07-19-2017 09:33 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  How sad is your party and candidate when you have:

1. A huge money advantage
2. Network news giving you debate questions in advance
3. News organizations as part of your campaign structure
4. The postal system illegally in the tank
5. All the polls in your favor

and yet you still crap your pants and lose.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You forgot that she despite all this, she STILL felt the need to 'cheat'... and that it was ultimately her 'cheating' that (at least according to the left) cost her the election.

You know, if there weren't any incriminating evidence in those 'hacked' emails, nobody would have cared.

(07-19-2017 02:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:33 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  How sad is your party and candidate when you have:

1. A huge money advantage
2. Network news giving you debate questions in advance
3. News organizations as part of your campaign structure
4. The postal system illegally in the tank
5. All the polls in your favor

and yet you still crap your pants and lose.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You forgot that she despite all this, she STILL felt the need to 'cheat'... and that it was ultimately her 'cheating' that (at least according to the left) cost her the election.

You know, if there weren't any incriminating evidence in those 'hacked' emails, nobody would have cared.

Ummm...what?

(07-19-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 02:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:33 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  How sad is your party and candidate when you have:

1. A huge money advantage
2. Network news giving you debate questions in advance
3. News organizations as part of your campaign structure
4. The postal system illegally in the tank
5. All the polls in your favor

and yet you still crap your pants and lose.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You forgot that she despite all this, she STILL felt the need to 'cheat'... and that it was ultimately her 'cheating' that (at least according to the left) cost her the election.

You know, if there weren't any incriminating evidence in those 'hacked' emails, nobody would have cared.

Ummm...what?

The mantra from the left is that the leak by Russia of the hacked emails contributed in some way to her loss.

If there wasn't anything 'bad' in them, why would 'being a victim' of something contribute to her loss?

If you're not one of the ones who thinks the email release played a part in the outcome, that's fine... but I don't think I need to present evidence that some people think this was true.

Hillary herself said Russian interference contributed to the loss, but there is no evidence anywhere of any votes being changed or people being stopped from voting....

so if it isn't the hacked emails, what is she referring to?

Why would being the victim of a crime be a reason for people not to vote for her?

(07-19-2017 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Hillary herself said Russian interference contributed to the loss, but there is no evidence anywhere of any votes being changed or people being stopped from voting....

so if it isn't the hacked emails, what is she referring to?

Why would being the victim of a crime be a reason for people not to vote for her?

I think that's pretty simple.

First off, you're falling for the right-wing BS if you think any majority of the left thinks that the Russian interference was about changing actual votes or stopping people from voting. There's only a small minority on the left who believe this nonsense.

The Russian interference cast Hillary in negative light in the minds of some of the undecided voters. And with the closeness of the key swing states (in Michigan it was only like 2-3 votes difference per precinct) it certainly could have cost her a state or two.

That being said, I don't think anyone can claim that it was enough to totally turn the election over to trump, but I also don't think anyone can make the case that it did not change the minds of at least a small percentage of voters.

And whether that was the result of something she did with Podesta and the DNC or just stuff they did on her behalf doesn't really matter IMO.

(07-19-2017 02:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 02:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:33 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  How sad is your party and candidate when you have:

1. A huge money advantage
2. Network news giving you debate questions in advance
3. News organizations as part of your campaign structure
4. The postal system illegally in the tank
5. All the polls in your favor

and yet you still crap your pants and lose.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You forgot that she despite all this, she STILL felt the need to 'cheat'... and that it was ultimately her 'cheating' that (at least according to the left) cost her the election.

You know, if there weren't any incriminating evidence in those 'hacked' emails, nobody would have cared.

Ummm...what?

The mantra from the left is that the leak by Russia of the hacked emails contributed in some way to her loss.

If there wasn't anything 'bad' in them, why would 'being a victim' of something contribute to her loss?

If you're not one of the ones who thinks the email release played a part in the outcome, that's fine... but I don't think I need to present evidence that some people think this was true.

I didn't pay real close attention to all the released emails, but I seem to remember that much of the stuff uncovered was just plans for things that never really materialized. So I think saying she herself cheated is a bit much. And it certainly was not the feeling of anyone on the left that I know who felt she was cheating.

(07-19-2017 11:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And just to be clear on what really happened here, the USPS let workers have time off without pay to work on campaigns. That's pretty much the gist of this.

Well the gist is that the inspector general said they broke the law. I think that takes precedence over your wishy washy spin cycle BS. Read on:

Quote:The U.S. Postal Service engaged in “systemic” violations of federal law by pressuring managers to approve letter carriers taking time off last fall to campaign for Hillary Clinton and other union-backed Democrats, investigators said Wednesday.....But by directing that time off be granted even over the objections of local post office managers who said they would be understaffed, the Postal Service itself showed a workplace bias toward Clinton and other Democrats endorsed by the union,...

WaPo link

It's funny... you give me a whole lot of crap, but you routinely misunderstand some very clear statements by me and respond to a bunch of crap that I never said. Maybe the reason you don't think I'm very intelligent is because you simply fail to understand what I'm saying?

Case in point

(07-19-2017 03:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Hillary herself said Russian interference contributed to the loss, but there is no evidence anywhere of any votes being changed or people being stopped from voting....

so if it isn't the hacked emails, what is she referring to?

Why would being the victim of a crime be a reason for people not to vote for her?

I think that's pretty simple.

First off, you're falling for the right-wing BS if you think any majority of the left thinks that the Russian interference was about changing actual votes or stopping people from voting. There's only a small minority on the left who believe this nonsense.

I never said I believed/fell for anything... I simply pointed to the two obvious ways that Russia's interference would have impacted the outcome... they are
1) that they actually changed votes, which I agree... almost nobody claims this or
2) that whatever they released damaged her with the voters.

In the broadest sense, there are no other options

Quote:The Russian interference cast Hillary in negative light in the minds of some of the undecided voters. And with the closeness of the key swing states (in Michigan it was only like 2-3 votes difference per precinct) it certainly could have cost her a state or two.

That being said, I don't think anyone can claim that it was enough to totally turn the election over to trump, but I also don't think anyone can make the case that it did not change the minds of at least a small percentage of voters.

And whether that was the result of something she did with Podesta and the DNC or just stuff they did on her behalf doesn't really matter IMO.

Why would her being a victim of a crime cast her in a negative light? That's specifically what I asked you to address, and you didn't.

(07-19-2017 03:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I didn't pay real close attention to all the released emails, but I seem to remember that much of the stuff uncovered was just plans for things that never really materialized. So I think saying she herself cheated is a bit much. And it certainly was not the feeling of anyone on the left that I know who felt she was cheating.

Hence I put the term in quotes...
I seem to recall some allusions to working in at least a debatable fashion with the press or even debate moderators, and really more about keeping Bernie at bay rather than trump, but I don't recall either and that is beside the point...

My point is that that 'being a blameless victim of a crime' is not a valid reason for meaningful numbers of people to vote AGAINST someone.
They have to believe
1) she was at least in part to blame/careless or
2) that the content changed their minds.
I simply can't think of a third...
can you?

(07-19-2017 03:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  First off, you're falling for the right-wing BS if you think any majority of the left thinks that the Russian interference was about changing actual votes or stopping people from voting. There's only a small minority on the left who believe this nonsense.

But the left wing BS is that Russia attacked our democracy. If this didn't happen, then Russia didn't attack our democracy. Hacking the DNC and Podesta's emails isn't attacking our democracy, for one simple reason. The DNC and Podesta are not our democracy.

Quote:The Russian interference cast Hillary in negative light in the minds of some of the undecided voters. And with the closeness of the key swing states (in Michigan it was only like 2-3 votes difference per precinct) it certainly could have cost her a state or two.

First, I'm not willing to accept the "Russian interference" as a done deal until somebody proves that. And no, the statements by the directors of the various intel agencies about a "high degree of confidence" does not constitute proof. At the end of the day, I'm going to remain skeptical of any "proof" that is not supported by giving nonpartisan IT forensic experts access to the allegedly hacked computers. The DNC's denial of such access strikes me as a major red flag.

Second, if Hillary was cast in a negative light, it's because she and Podesta were exposed as low-life human beings by factual emails (I've seen nobody claiming that the exposed documents were not legitimate, have you?). They were exposed as the kinds of people whom society SHOULD cast in a negative light.

Quote:That being said, I don't think anyone can claim that it was enough to totally turn the election over to trump, but I also don't think anyone can make the case that it did not change the minds of at least a small percentage of voters.

If it didn't influence enough people to change the election, then the whole idea that it was an attack on our democracy gets blown to kingdom come.

To be clear, I'm not in any way denying that Russia has been hacking us for decades, as we have them, and China and a bunch of other countries have been hacking us both. That's why Hillary's server was a problem, which the left vigorously denied. I find it the height of hypocrisy that the left continues to insist that possible hacking of classified information form Hillary's nonsecure server was not a problem, but hacking the DNC and Podesta's emails was a major national crisis. That is utter BS.

(07-19-2017 09:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 03:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  First off, you're falling for the right-wing BS if you think any majority of the left thinks that the Russian interference was about changing actual votes or stopping people from voting. There's only a small minority on the left who believe this nonsense.

But the left wing BS is that Russia attacked our democracy. If this didn't happen, then Russia didn't attack our democracy. Hacking the DNC and Podesta's emails isn't attacking our democracy, for one simple reason. The DNC and Podesta are not our democracy.

Quote:The Russian interference cast Hillary in negative light in the minds of some of the undecided voters. And with the closeness of the key swing states (in Michigan it was only like 2-3 votes difference per precinct) it certainly could have cost her a state or two.

First, I'm not willing to accept the "Russian interference" as a done deal until somebody proves that. And no, the statements by the directors of the various intel agencies about a "high degree of confidence" does not constitute proof. At the end of the day, I'm going to remain skeptical of any "proof" that is not supported by giving nonpartisan IT forensic experts access to the allegedly hacked computers. The DNC's denial of such access strikes me as a major red flag.

Second, if Hillary was cast in a negative light, it's because she and Podesta were exposed as low-life human beings by factual emails (I've seen nobody claiming that the exposed documents were not legitimate, have you?). They were exposed as the kinds of people whom society SHOULD cast in a negative light.

Quote:That being said, I don't think anyone can claim that it was enough to totally turn the election over to trump, but I also don't think anyone can make the case that it did not change the minds of at least a small percentage of voters.

If it didn't influence enough people to change the election, then the whole idea that it was an attack on our democracy gets blown to kingdom come.

To be clear, I'm not in any way denying that Russia has been hacking us for decades, as we have them, and China and a bunch of other countries have been hacking us both. That's why Hillary's server was a problem, which the left vigorously denied. I find it the height of hypocrisy that the left continues to insist that possible hacking of classified information form Hillary's nonsecure server was not a problem, but hacking the DNC and Podesta's emails was a major national crisis. That is utter BS.

XACLY!

(07-19-2017 09:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 03:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  First off, you're falling for the right-wing BS if you think any majority of the left thinks that the Russian interference was about changing actual votes or stopping people from voting. There's only a small minority on the left who believe this nonsense.

But the left wing BS is that Russia attacked our democracy. If this didn't happen, then Russia didn't attack our democracy. Hacking the DNC and Podesta's emails isn't attacking our democracy, for one simple reason. The DNC and Podesta are not our democracy.

Quote:The Russian interference cast Hillary in negative light in the minds of some of the undecided voters. And with the closeness of the key swing states (in Michigan it was only like 2-3 votes difference per precinct) it certainly could have cost her a state or two.

First, I'm not willing to accept the "Russian interference" as a done deal until somebody proves that. And no, the statements by the directors of the various intel agencies about a "high degree of confidence" does not constitute proof. At the end of the day, I'm going to remain skeptical of any "proof" that is not supported by giving nonpartisan IT forensic experts access to the allegedly hacked computers. The DNC's denial of such access strikes me as a major red flag.

Second, if Hillary was cast in a negative light, it's because she and Podesta were exposed as low-life human beings by factual emails (I've seen nobody claiming that the exposed documents were not legitimate, have you?). They were exposed as the kinds of people whom society SHOULD cast in a negative light.

Quote:That being said, I don't think anyone can claim that it was enough to totally turn the election over to trump, but I also don't think anyone can make the case that it did not change the minds of at least a small percentage of voters.

If it didn't influence enough people to change the election, then the whole idea that it was an attack on our democracy gets blown to kingdom come.

To be clear, I'm not in any way denying that Russia has been hacking us for decades, as we have them, and China and a bunch of other countries have been hacking us both. That's why Hillary's server was a problem, which the left vigorously denied. I find it the height of hypocrisy that the left continues to insist that possible hacking of classified information form Hillary's nonsecure server was not a problem, but hacking the DNC and Podesta's emails was a major national crisis. That is utter BS.

Right...it could have been a 400 pound guy somewhere.