Anti-Trump dossier author was hired to help Hillary challenge 2016 election results

we are just tired of the bullsh*t of the fake foundation of this FISA warrant

you hit the nail on the head with that statement

we need a complete overhaul of the fisa laws and all government surveillance laws in general

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

Both are ultra nationalist, not socialist, because their idea of 'equality' is exclusive, not inclusive.

So fascism is just socialism for realists? Let me clarify, people are selfish and exclude others they dislike starting at a very young age. So the nazi's said socialism for me, not for thee. Which, ironically, is how it works out in almost every case. The rich and political class reap the benefits of socialism while the rest live in squalor.

No, Fascism is fascism. Nazism is nazism. Both are extremist right-wing capitalist systems.

Communism and Socialism are extremist left wing ant-capitalist systems.

Nazism and Socialism are politically opposites.

The Democrats are centrist but slightly left leaning. The Republicans are centrist but slightly right leaning. Both are capitalist.

The Democrats aren't Socialists in the same way that the Republicans are not Nazi.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

you can take this anyway you like, but a while ago, before politics, I'd see your avitar in a thread and EXPECT a well reasoned, thoughtful response that would make me think. And I was rarely disappointed. Phage was the same way. Since this, and of course the fact that you both chose the wrong side as I see it, (my bias), I find most of what I read from you to be partisan and weak. I know I never was a great mind here, but some of you used to be. I can only hope that once Trump is gone, the lunatics will go back to the asylum, and the smart folk will return to their bodies.

Politics is a cancer.

I would counter that Trump is irrelevant in the scheme of things. He has merely polarized the debate and will probably be gone from the political scene soon. I do fear that he is trying to turn a democratic republic into an empire, as has happened a few times in history.

Politics is a reflection of our need to control our environment. At some stage, it keeps getting overrun by those who don't want the common good, but their own personal advantage and damn the plebeians.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump won the election (on a technicality).

Your ignorance is showing. This is not a technicality .

That is the preference of the electoral college, not the vote of the people.

How stupid is it to have a country of 326 million people and then decide their leader based only 270 voters? So much NOT democracy (which is one person, one vote).

Because without it, only 5 states out of 50 would decide the election. Far less like Democracy wouldn't you say?

Man, they know everything)) it is beneficial to someone

a reply to: Wardaddy454

The problem with that is the assumption that 100% of blue states are blue voters. California, in 2016, had 4.5 million GOP voters. New York had 2.8 million. The popular states in the electoral college are still going to be popular if it were based on population alone.

a reply to: chr0naut

There is plenty of evidence out there of just how dirty the FBI is. What Ruby Ridge and Waco slip your mind?

I have been mostly in agreement with your points about Steele and how its perfectly natural to him to be called upon to bring more information on his dossier to light---but jesus---Whitey Bulger?

The FBI has killed its own citizens, insides out borders, and covered it up. They have allowed killers to roam free--just to get their information. Frankly what government agency actually has earned our trust?

Look up Clinton Foundation Norway. The last paragraph says it all @ armstrongeconomics.com dated October 5, 2016 Norway's Link to the Clinton Foundation & Obama-- Corruption to Create World War III

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump won the election (on a technicality).

Your ignorance is showing. This is not a technicality .

That is the preference of the electoral college, not the vote of the people.

How stupid is it to have a country of 326 million people and then decide their leader based only 270 voters? So much NOT democracy (which is one person, one vote).

Because without it, only 5 states out of 50 would decide the election. Far less like Democracy wouldn't you say?

But it is electors who should decide the election. Not the state they are in.

It's like this, Wyoming has about 500,000 people but has the same voting power as California, with 39 million people.

That isn't a slight adjustment for less populous states.

And politicians know that even if there were billions of people in the populous states, you can just totally ignore them. All you need to win is 50% of the states (even less by concentrating on swing states), so by concentration only on the less populous/swing states, you could control the majority with a minority vote.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The problem with that is the assumption that 100% of blue states are blue voters. California, in 2016, had 4.5 million GOP voters. New York had 2.8 million. The popular states in the electoral college are still going to be popular if it were based on population alone.

Exactly, something the Left doesn't think about when the call for the abolishment of the electoral college.

What will they claim if a Republican candidate wins the popular vote, and that's the only metric we use? You know there will be REEEE'ing.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump won the election (on a technicality).

Your ignorance is showing. This is not a technicality .

That is the preference of the electoral college, not the vote of the people.

How stupid is it to have a country of 326 million people and then decide their leader based only 270 voters? So much NOT democracy (which is one person, one vote).

Because without it, only 5 states out of 50 would decide the election. Far less like Democracy wouldn't you say?

But it is electors who should decide the election. Not the state they are in.

It's like this, Wyoming has about 500,000 people but has the same voting power as California, with 39 million people.

That isn't a slight adjustment for less populous states.

And politicians know that even if there were billions of people in the populous states, you can just totally ignore them. All you need to win is 50% of the states (even less by concentrating on swing states), so by concentration only on the less populous/swing states, you could control the majority with a minority vote.

Hillary ignored key states and lost.

This is by design. Would you rather states full of people are not represented on the larger stage? That's not Democracy.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump won the election (on a technicality).

Your ignorance is showing. This is not a technicality .

That is the preference of the electoral college, not the vote of the people.

How stupid is it to have a country of 326 million people and then decide their leader based only 270 voters? So much NOT democracy (which is one person, one vote).

Because without it, only 5 states out of 50 would decide the election. Far less like Democracy wouldn't you say?

But it is electors who should decide the election. Not the state they are in.

It's like this, Wyoming has about 500,000 people but has the same voting power as California, with 39 million people.

That isn't a slight adjustment for less populous states.

And politicians know that even if there were billions of people in the populous states, you can just totally ignore them. All you need to win is 50% of the states (even less by concentrating on swing states), so by concentration only on the less populous/swing states, you could control the majority with a minority vote.

Hillary ignored key states and lost.

This is by design. Would you rather states full of people are not represented on the larger stage? That's not Democracy.

Hillary won the popular vote, the one where you count every person voting as if they were actually a person who voted (how ridiculous)!

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Hillary ignored key states and lost.

This is by design. Would you rather states full of people are not represented on the larger stage? That's not Democracy.

1)Hillary won the popular vote. She went to 'key' states and still won the popular vote.

2)We're a Republic.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Democrats aren't Socialists in the same way that the Republicans are not Nazi

Other than the fact that the dems are electing people within their party who are also part of the democratic socialists of america while republicans are not electing people that are part of the nazi party. Also the dems have caucused with an avowed socialist (sanders) and had to cheat to keep him from winning their presidential primary. Other than that, yeah they're about the same.

a reply to: chr0naut

The goal of the election is to win the most electoral votes, not the most individual votes. Hillary lost. End of story. Your arguments in favor of changing the rules likely wouldn't have changed the outcome, it would have just changed the strategy.

It's like arguing that your team threw more strikes so you should have won the baseball game. Or your team gained more yards so they should have won. It's just not the goal of the game, sorry. Both teams went into the game knowing the goal was to score more points (or electoral votes, in this case) one side won (Trump) one side lost (Shillary).

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

The goal of the election is to win the most electoral votes, not the most individual votes. Hillary lost. End of story. Your arguments in favor of changing the rules likely wouldn't have changed the outcome, it would have just changed the strategy.

It's like arguing that your team threw more strikes so you should have won the baseball game. Or your team gained more yards so they should have won. It's just not the goal of the game, sorry. Both teams went into the game knowing the goal was to score more points (or electoral votes, in this case) one side won (Trump) one side lost (Shillary).

Shillary and Traitorump.

The pinnacles of the American political system?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump won the election (on a technicality).

Your ignorance is showing. This is not a technicality .

That is the preference of the electoral college, not the vote of the people.

How stupid is it to have a country of 326 million people and then decide their leader based only 270 voters? So much NOT democracy (which is one person, one vote).

Because without it, only 5 states out of 50 would decide the election. Far less like Democracy wouldn't you say?

But it is electors who should decide the election. Not the state they are in.

It's like this, Wyoming has about 500,000 people but has the same voting power as California, with 39 million people.

That isn't a slight adjustment for less populous states.

And politicians know that even if there were billions of people in the populous states, you can just totally ignore them. All you need to win is 50% of the states (even less by concentrating on swing states), so by concentration only on the less populous/swing states, you could control the majority with a minority vote.

Hillary ignored key states and lost.

This is by design. Would you rather states full of people are not represented on the larger stage? That's not Democracy.

Hillary won the popular vote, the one where you count every person voting as if they were actually a person who voted (how ridiculous)!

Foreigners dont understand our system or electoral rules
It's cool
We understand its complicated

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump won the election (on a technicality).

Your ignorance is showing. This is not a technicality .

That is the preference of the electoral college, not the vote of the people.

How stupid is it to have a country of 326 million people and then decide their leader based only 270 voters? So much NOT democracy (which is one person, one vote).

Because without it, only 5 states out of 50 would decide the election. Far less like Democracy wouldn't you say?

But it is electors who should decide the election. Not the state they are in.

It's like this, Wyoming has about 500,000 people but has the same voting power as California, with 39 million people.

That isn't a slight adjustment for less populous states.

And politicians know that even if there were billions of people in the populous states, you can just totally ignore them. All you need to win is 50% of the states (even less by concentrating on swing states), so by concentration only on the less populous/swing states, you could control the majority with a minority vote.

Hillary ignored key states and lost.

This is by design. Would you rather states full of people are not represented on the larger stage? That's not Democracy.

Hillary won the popular vote, the one where you count every person voting as if they were actually a person who voted (how ridiculous)!

Foreigners dont understand our system or electoral rules
It's cool
We understand its complicated

Trust me, foreigners invented proportional representation. It has been keeping the select in power since the Ancient Roman republic (upon which the American system is based).

It is the idea of 'true democracy' that is the new thing and America talks 'big' about it, but doesn't have it. We have the technological capability these days to make true democracy easily doable.

Any system that modifies the "one person - one vote" ideal is just not a true democracy.

a reply to: chr0naut

So you dont understand our system?
It's cool.