DOJ Documents Dump On Clinton Lynch Meeting Prove Media Collusion; FBI Lied

a reply to: Xcathdra

Aliases are commonplace ... *yawn* and these emails were still on government servers, unlike Pence's AOL emails...

But we never hear a peep from conservatives upset about Pence using AOL for email. Odd.

a reply to: Kettu

Yet the DOJ blocked foia requests.

and no, aliases arent commonplace. Well, except for Clinton, Obama and their cronies.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler



Majority means "the greatest number" as I've pointed out.

Majority does not mean the greatest number, and before you refer to the use of the word in British election language you might want to study the definition closely.

Despite that, I would have thought the US terminology was more pertinent to US elections.

Oxford dictionary:

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Xcathdra

Aliases are commonplace ... *yawn* and these emails were still on government servers, unlike Pence's AOL emails...

But we never hear a peep from conservatives upset about Pence using AOL for email. Odd.

Yeah, aliases are commonplace when you are hiding something.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Clinton did receive the majority of the votes cast as I said.

You guys are so obsessed you're not thinking... rounding off

Clinton won 48%
Trump won 46%
Johnson won 4%
Stine won 2%

Guessing on the last two as I'm on my phone.

Now of those four numbers what is the greatest number of votes received?

Majority means "the greatest number" as I've pointed out.

Majority does not mean the greatest number, and before you refer to the use of the word in British election language you might want to study the definition closely.

Oxford dictionary:

It's no use. These people think Hillary won the election and can't admit Trump won. When you factor the extra votes 2 hugely Democrat states NY & CA account for them. They want elections to be decided by 2 states and couldn't care less about how our elections are actually done.

a reply to: Grambler

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm going to keep this short. I apologize for the snark, it was unwarranted.

You both are correct in terms of the use of "majority" and "plurality" regarding the way votes are cast.

I have apparently been confused my entire life about the word "majority" (I don't use the word "plurality") in any common sense.

If you're interested, look up the terms "simple majority" and "absolute majority."

At any rate, mea culpa, in this point, you both were more correct than I was.

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Xcathdra

Aliases are commonplace ... *yawn* and these emails were still on government servers, unlike Pence's AOL emails...

But we never hear a peep from conservatives upset about Pence using AOL for email. Odd.

Yeah, aliases are commonplace when you are hiding something.

So...what's your name? You must be hiding something using an alias online and all?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm going to keep this short. I apologize for the snark, it was unwarranted.

You both are correct in terms of the use of "majority" and "plurality" regarding the way votes are cast.

I have apparently been confused my entire life about the word "majority" (I don't use the word "plurality") in any common sense.

If you're interested, look up the terms "simple majority" and "absolute majority."

At any rate, mea culpa, in this point, you both were more correct than I was.

Eh, we all screw up, no big deal.

I am from around the Pittsburgh area. I thought that "slippy" (like slippery) and "crick" (like creek) were real words until I was 28.

a reply to: mkultra11

No one that I know of believes that Clinton won the election. If they do, they're mistaken.

My point here, such as it was, addressed the common misstatements that many Trump supporters make in assuming that "the American people" support Mr. Trump. There's nothing that indicates that to be true and there is plenty to indicate that it isn't (popular vote totals, current approval/disapproval numbers, etc.)

As far as my majority confusion, many dictionaries use as the first definition "a greater number." THe page linked from the OED does as well. However, as I just stated, I was technically mistaken about the definition of the term as it applies to American voting totals.

However the larger points remain. Trump (and most Republicans) were against the Electoral College in 2012. Trump did not receive the majority (either kind) of the votes cast. More Americans at this point disapprove of Trump than approve of him.

Apologies to all for the off-topic tangent.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't trust the approval ratings polls (polls are too easy to manipulate or screw up)

However, I also do not believe the majority of Americans approve of Trump.

If I had to guess, I would say maybe around 40% to 45% "approve" of Trump to varying degrees.

This means I believe over 50% do not. (No proof, just my gut feeling)

But I would argue that many of the people that don't approve of him may just hate him as a person, but agree with his policies.

So again, I don't trust the polls, but things like his immigration plan seem to be popular. Stances on Isis and jobs may also be at least around 50% (again I have no proof). I bet most people even agree with the Trans military ban (which was terribly introduced).

I could be totally wrong, but I think that it may be a mistake to conflate peoples hatred of Trump with hating his policies.

a reply to: Stevenjames15

Yup. Pretty hard to make a case with whole pages redacted

a reply to: Grambler

There are scientific polls which I trust to show trends. No poll foretells the future. Most opinion polls are garbage.

Your point is well taken ... each of us probably has different "percentages" of like/dislike and trust/mistrust.

Trump said on Election Night that he wanted to be the President of all Americans. I took him at his word until he disproved it.

Trump did attempt to fulfill many of his campaign promises by the use of EO. However, a) many of his promises were nutty and b) I'm not the greatest fan of Presidents ruling by fiat DESPITE believing that the Executive Order does have a place.

Those are about the only praiseworthy things I have to say about the President. He seems to have lost his edge, and he seems to be out of touch with day-to-day reality, at least, the reality that most Americans live in.

He panders to a group of people that are ideologically opposite to me. He is an international embarrassment, and he has demonstrated none of his vaunted negotiation skills.

Is he better or worse than Clinton? I can't say. I know that a Clinton Presidency would have been dead in the water.

No one would have gotten anything done; the divide between Americans would have further wedges driven into it, and she would have quite likely had us in a shooting war by now.

My votes would be for James Marshall or maybe Josiah Bartlett.

Yes, I prefer fictional characters to our real world choices.

a reply to: Grambler

Varying degree. Not now. Its love or hate.

originally posted by: Kettu

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Xcathdra

Aliases are commonplace ... *yawn* and these emails were still on government servers, unlike Pence's AOL emails...

But we never hear a peep from conservatives upset about Pence using AOL for email. Odd.

Yeah, aliases are commonplace when you are hiding something.

So...what's your name? You must be hiding something using an alias online and all?

What are you hiding? So, you actually got the point. Except none of us is Loretta Lynch who is using an alias to hide emails about a controversial meeting with Bill Clinton.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mkultra11

No one that I know of believes that Clinton won the election. If they do, they're mistaken.

My point here, such as it was, addressed the common misstatements that many Trump supporters make in assuming that "the American people" support Mr. Trump. There's nothing that indicates that to be true and there is plenty to indicate that it isn't (popular vote totals, current approval/disapproval numbers, etc.)

As far as my majority confusion, many dictionaries use as the first definition "a greater number." THe page linked from the OED does as well. However, as I just stated, I was technically mistaken about the definition of the term as it applies to American voting totals.

However the larger points remain. Trump (and most Republicans) were against the Electoral College in 2012. Trump did not receive the majority (either kind) of the votes cast. More Americans at this point disapprove of Trump than approve of him.

Apologies to all for the off-topic tangent.

The point you are missing is that The American people did choose Trump. Just because it's just under 3 million (arguably) in total less than due to a couple of states, those millions of people in between (the entire country) are not Americans and their votes dont count? It's disrespectful.

It doesnt matter what people say about the elctoral college. This is how elections have always been held in our country since the beginning. Our elections are not judged as majority for that specific reason where you just cant win by overloading a few states with an overwhelming voter count. Its working exactly how the founders intended.

It was a tight election, that as you know Hillary was all but ready to have it handed to her and really coasted through her campaign depending on her media sycophants to help chest Bernie out and destroy Trump. But Trump held an amazing camapaign where he worked his ass off, traveling to multiple states per day, battling the media which he turned the negative coverage into positive exposure for himself. It's the untold story, Trump earned the win with a great strategy. While Hillary had basically no strategy.

People don't want to accept it, like you, but you will just have to come to grips that the man won one of the most vicious elections in history and actually deserved it.

a reply to: mkultra11

Keep going around in circles.

Trump won in the Electoral College. Trump won the Presidency. No one is disputing that.

Update the argument.

What I am saying, and what i've repeated multiple times, is that most Americans DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP.

A greater number of people voted for other candidates.

Disrespectful? What a joke! Trump and Trump supporters have ludicrously complained that the 2.8 million people who voted for Clinton are illegitimate. How much more disrespectful can you get? Don't be absurd.

Get off the Electoral College. Trump slammed it in 2012; Republicans whined about it. It's hypocritical in galactic terms.

Trump won by razor-thin margins in four States: MI, PA, FL and WI. I'll turn the question that you guys love so much around on you: "why should 70K people in four States decide who the President is? Why should their votes count more than the rest of us?

The Electoral College merely enforces the tyranny of the minority ... which is just as distasteful as any other tyranny.

All Trump supporters have is a total flip ... you hated the EC in 2012 and you love it now.

Get over Clinton ... you guys are the only ones that keep bringing her up. Stop lying by saying that people haven't accepted that Trump won ... it's absurd. I've said "Trump won by ..." every time I've mentioned it. Why misrepresent such an obvious fact?

Stop hiding behind that ridiculous cover and get real. Trump has done nothing but blunder and bluster since January. Aside from the Executive Orders he's signed (another flip, you hated them under Obama, now they're just peachy) he's achieved NOTHING. Not one piece of signature legislation, and you guys have the Congress too. It's a RIDICULOUS roadmap of abject failure.

Let's talk reality for once, eh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mkultra11

The Electoral College merely enforces the tyranny of the minority ... which is just as distasteful as any other tyranny.

If that were true then the electoral college would produce a 'minority' win far more often than it does.
The EC actually seems to have provided a very effective balance, and it's hardly a tyranny. The rarity of the EC voting against the peoples vote tells you that.

In all of the back and forth chat, we've lost sight of the news that the FBI lied about there being no documentation on the Clinton/Lynch meeting. Even now, we only have redacted versions of some information. That should be of concern to all, regardless of who won the election, as should yet another example of a political party crafting news stories in what is supposed to be independent media.

a reply to: UKTruth

Again, all of that is your opinion.

The Electoral College has and does empower the votes of less populous States, i.e. a person's vote in Wyoming has almost four times the power of a person's vote in California. Not to mention the fact that Trump himself, and a majority of American right-wingers, called the EC undemocratic ... right up until Election Night 2016.

There is no evidence that the FBI lied about the Clinton/Lynch meeting.

There is no evidence that a political party has crafted news stories.

If you have evidence of such, present it; it hasn't been presented here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The FBI said there were no documents relating to the Clinton/Lynch meeting.
We've now been provided documents by the DoJ.
Is that not proof enough that the FBI lied?

There is a link on this thread to 413 pages of emails. In those emails there are examples of the Obama administration officials collaborating with journalists to change wording and or/remove sections of their news reports. What else would you call that if not crafting?

I am leaving the EC discussion as it's off topic.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

The FBI said there were no documents relating to the Clinton/Lynch meeting.
We've now been provided documents by the DoJ.
Is that not proof enough that the FBI lied?

There is a link on this thread to 413 pages of emails. In those emails there are examples of the Obama administration officials collaborating with journalists to change wording and or/remove sections of their news reports. What else would you call that if not crafting?

I am leaving the EC discussion as it's off topic.

You've "been provided" with emails which show nothing more than the normal course of business.

So, you've got a pig-in-a-poke that you're selling now? You can't cite any evidence for your claims, but, you know, those 413 emails?

The evidence is in there. LOL.

Show us then.