Yes, I would prefer that all Americans vote, and that their votes should count.
Getting there from here is something that won’t start until people admit the system as it is now could use some improvement.
But there’s no reason to be talking about the 2000 election.
The don’t talk about it.
Me, I do have reasons to talk about it when discussing elections where there are irregularities.
Good for you. Me, I go back decades. They were substantially shackled after Ed Snowden revealed the particular activities I think you’re talking about, but that goes back a lot more than months.
Once again, how do you know what they’ve done, haven’t done, or will do?
That’s rich coming from someone claiming the absence of evidence himself. I didn’t. I said YOU DON’T KNOW. You’ve got nothing but vague, unsupported accusations. Are we clear now?
Strawman city. I never mentioned any dossier being handed off to Trump. I talked about a dossier detailed in the Steele memos. Have you read them?
You clearly haven’t read the Steele dossier nor the Simpson testimonies. There are detailed 15 or 20 Russians in Steele’s dossier alone, all with provable links to Trump, Don Jr., Jared, Ivanka, Flynn, and Page at least, and many of those links tie to Putin. (I don’t recall anything being mentioned about Eric, but I wouldn’t put it past him.)
You may live in enough of a fantasy world that you can run around parroting “No collusion!” but I don’t buy it. I don’t claim to have proof, but I can read the signs, as you seem to be unable or unwilling to do. Regardless, you’re also parroting the Republican talking point. There must be no collusion because nothing was found, yet the investigation continues and a handful of people know what it’s turned up to this point, let alone what it will turn up.
Sorry, you don’t get a preemptive “You don’t know” when you claim there isn’t collusion as if you know. And, plain and simply, you don’t.
Since it took one Snowden to reveal the extent of the domestic spying officials lied about…
It might be wise to wait for the next whistleblower before making an emotional commitment to these guys.
Nobody knows what they’ve done, are doing, or will do. And they have a track record of lying about it when anyone tries to hold them accountable.
But it’s hardly satisfactory (to my way of thinking) to say they have secret evidence and we should just take their word for it.
Yes, we don’t know. Because of the absence of evidence.
Just like no one knows about the unicorn in your garage.
So Steele claims there was a Russian dossier on Clinton, and that is the ‘evidence’ there was such a thing?
This kind of game is also played as ‘Six Degrees of Separation of Kevin Bacon’.
It would be a fantasy if I were lecturing people on the internet that I should accept some vague claims about Putin based on the flimsiest of ‘evidence’.
What I am doping is rejecting fantasies until some persuasive evidence rears its head, and not rumors about ‘secret evidence’ we can’t be shown.
OK, no proof.
Your interpretation of signs and omens isn’t as compelling as you seem to wish it was.
It’s neither here nor there with me what some Republicans might say - I’m not ideologically befuddled enough to start denying the sky is blue just because a bad guy also says so.
The fact is, you don’t know either.
But since the positive claim is apparently ‘all this collusion with Russia to rig the election to get a Putin puppet in the White House’ the burden of proof is not mine.
It’s your conspiracy theory. It might be wise to soft peddle it until you can claim to have some proof.
Every election has irregularities because they’re run by humans. Nothing that special about 2000 except it was put in the spotlight. The irregularities of a hanging chad is not remotely comparable to an organised plot by a foreign power to hack and disperse party emails coupled with a disinformation campaign.
So no, you don’t have reasons. Not good ones anyway.
You’re free to not talk about it if you choose.
But when discussing manipulated/hacked/rigged elections 2000 deserves to be on the list.
We’ve known for a long time our system is open to hacking/rigging/manipulating, and if it’s true The Russians finally arrived to take advantage of our collective failure to protect and strengthen our democratic institutions maybe it’s time some thought was given to doing something about it.
If you imagine the 6 million votes ‘lost’ in 2000 (according to the study cited above) are no big deal and unworthy of mention, then I can only say that’s six million Americans who were robbed of their rights and it is a big deal for me. In my opinion robbing Americans of their votes is a crime that should have been addressed a long time before 2016.
Not overly so. It’s not like there’s a big computer sitting there waiting to be hacked. Individual voting machines can be hacked but they have to be done in person, because they aren’t hooked up to the internet, and you have to get around a security seal for each machine. Further, the national vote is completely decentralized being a state run thing. Many states still use pen and paper.
So you are free to distract from the topic of the thread with hanging chad talk but it is a distraction – utterly unconnected.
You’re free to ignore my on-point observations if they inconvenience your narrative.
But if what you’re now saying is true, then it would appear the story about The Russians ‘hacking’ or ‘rigging’ the recent election in favor of Trump must be hogwash since it is not ‘overly’ susceptible to such unsavory manipulations.
Though, as I pointed out, six million Americans being robbed of their votes in 2000 would appear to be a problem for anyone who even pays lip service to the notion of democracy.
Therefore there must be more, right? And specifically related to this case.
You’ve done nothing but question the evidence, and provided none yourself. Hmm…what group of politicians do I know of that do that?
Dammit, you’re gonna get me on an endangered species rap!
Thanks, I’ll take the word of an established and respected intelligence agent over yours any day of the week, even if it is humint, because the fact is that some of it is already known to have been corroborated.
Steele’s sources do. And it’s corroborated by other sources.
As opposed to Deny, deny, deny, and then say it doesn’t matter anyway?
It’s a helluva lot more substantial than yours.
You’re arguing the negative, something you can never prove, but since you’ve provided no actual facts, you’re not even doing that.
My theory is backed by evidence. Yours has none in sight.
I have a healthy respect for the truth and think it’s wise not to trust those with a solid track record of lying. Obviously, you take a different tack.
Yes, claims need to be questioned. And when someone says ‘I really, really believe there is evidence but I can’t show it to you’ they need to be realize that the depth of their unfounded faith isn’t a very persuasive argument to use against rational people like me.
That’s fine if you are willing to accept rumors as if they were facts. It is rather odd you think everyone else should be as naive.
So we more than one person who believes in the rumors.
I think my tactic of waiting for persuasive evidence is a better way to go about it than believe, believe, believe while claiming facts don’t matter because so many share the same faith.
The fervency of your commitment doesn’t make your beliefs any more substantial.
I don’t need any more facts than your admission that you have no proof for your cherished beliefs to remain unmoved by your proselytizing.
More claims from you which misrepresent the situation here.
Exactly why that’s not ‘the story’ anyone serious is dscussing. It’s certainly not what this thread was started about. But you’re free to delude yourself that you’re making ‘on-point observations’.
You’re just angry because I was able to back up my claims with the facts that showed your narrative was false.
“There was a close vote in one state…”
As I proved, the 2000 election scandal was much bigger than that.
[sarcasm] Boy, you’re really stretching the limits of my imagination here! [/sarcasm]
I’m not angry. And no, the ‘election scandal’ was not bigger than the Florida recount court case. There’s always some irregularities, so not a scandal. But keep up the ‘on-point observations’.
Spaces removed for brevity.
Interesting that you can ignore the numerous Russia connections to the Trumps, yet you call me naive. And still you have not provided a single piece of actual evidence to support your original contention.
Sources are slightly more than ‘people who believe the rumors.’
Just for clarity, I believe Trump is as dirty as it’s possible to be. Proving it is another matter. But when you make a living and a political career out of blatant and continual lying, you don’t get the benefit of any doubt. The more he denies it, the more I believe it. There is absolutely no way that a reasonable, undeluded person can believe a word that he says.
Nevertheless, there’s no way I can talk you out of your position, any more than I could with Okrahoma. So you go right on believing that Trump is pure as the driven snow. But don’t have the balls to try to tell me I’m naive because I don’t blindly agree with you.
If you imagine I ever claimed Trump was pure as the driven snow, you are suffering severe reading incomprehension.
My issue here is with the OP - the accusations about Trump-Putin collusion regarding the election are so vague as toi be meaningless.
The difference between me and my critics here is that I actually care about democracy in the United States and this story is bigger than just an opportunity to benefit one party by bashing the other.
I already provided a link which indicated millions of votes were trashed all over the country.
Unlike you, I care about having democracy in the United States instead of using this as an opportunity for partisan attacks against Trump.
I haven’t made any partisan attacks against Trump.
The link you gave estimate 4-6 million votes were lost (not stolen, not trashed). It includes all possible human and machine errors. 104 million votes were counted for the main candidates. So their worst case is 6/110*100%=5.5% loss rate. There lowest 3.7%. I suppose that could be better but not horrible when you have over a 100 million people voting on the same day (give or take). Do you think it’s realistic to get that to 0%?
To be specific, your link said “voting machine problems, ballot confusion, lost absentee votes and failed voter registration” and that the main problem seemed to be malfunctioning voting machines.
Looking at your own link, do you have any specific solutions in mind?