Unlike you, we are discussing the 2016 election involving Trump and possible involvement of the Russians, not the 2000 election that your link is about.
I posted in reply to the OP, and some posters decided to nitpick about certain out of context sentence fragments and post blatantly false things minimizing the problem of election fraud and interference in the United States.
I responded and corrected the factually untrue statements by my critics.
It’s your position that these misleading claims should be allowed to stand?
It seems to me that you are attempting to minimalize the problem stated in the OP by turning it into yet another generic intellectually misleading “But the other side is equally guilty!” argument that distracts from the original point.
There are plenty of examples of alternatives to the chaotic system in the US.
Neutralizing the Electoral College would be a step towards greater democracy,
http://thehilltalk.com/2017/02/23/electoral-college-national-popular-vote/
public financing of elections,
enforcing a non-partisan method to undo gerrymandering,
http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting#research_redistrictingoverview
universal voter registration,
reverse policies which disenfranchise Americans,
https://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/felony-disenfranchisement/
in general just do the obvious and sensible things that would make our elections easier for voters to participate and make results more reflective of what voters want.
My question with regard to the OP, which was ignored in favor of other side issues, was what exactly the alleged’ collusion’ is supposed to consist of.
It’s difficult to figure out what I am allegedly ‘minimalizing’ when no one here seems able to articulate what we are talking about in any concrete way.
I pointed out that it doesn’t seem to included ‘hacking’ or ‘rigging’ since neither of those investigations seem to have been started by the FBI - which I would expect if they took those claims seriously.
What exactly do you think this alleged ‘collusion’ regarding the recent election was?
You already said Trump is probably corrupt. Why are you having trouble imagining some corruption involving Russian?
Yes, I did write that. I wonder why someone claimed I assumed Trump was ‘pure as the driven snow’?
I’m trying to suss out what this ‘colluded with Putin’ might have to do with the recent election. No one here seems to have a clue.
WRT the actual election, the primary cause for the failure of the Democratic candidate to win comes down to elements of our antiquated system going back to the 18th century - something Putin could hardly have arranged without a time machine.
Thank you, O Arbiter of who cares about democracy. Seriously, who the fuck do you think you are?
Sorry, but defense-lawyer tactics don’t prove anything. Nor does flag-wrapping act as a distraction. Your so-called ‘cites’ for improving the system have nothing whatsoever to do with what has already happened.
See, I have provided evidence. You’ve done nothing but nitpick and question the motivations of anyone who disagrees with you. Very Trumpian, don’t you think?
Someone who’s been accused by posters here of being a Kremlin spy, and accused of not wanting Americans to vote. Posters here have done nothing but nitpick and question my motivations.
Who the fuck do you guys think you are? :smack:
Someone asked by Czarcasm what sorts of things might improve the electoral system in the US. It’s too fucking bad if you think I should ignore direct questions from other posters here. Anytime you want to ignore the disaster that is our electoral system, feel free to stop posting about it. Meanwhile, let other people who do have an interest in the integrity of our system discuss the matter.
Yes, the fucked uppedness of our system has already happened. It’s a longstanding problem.
If The Russians interfered the reason I would object to that is because I care about the integrity of our democracy, not simply because it’s an opportunity for partisan attacks on Trump.
Of course, like when you write:
“I believe Trump is as dirty as it’s possible to be. Proving it is another matter.”
and
“I don’t claim to have proof, but I can read the signs…”
Those things which indicate that you are speculating.
Obviously, the OP asks us to speculate and I have already addressed the question of what I think the FBI would do if it was true.
That’s rich coming from a poster who immediately follows this accusation with this:
Now I’m being accused of being ‘like Trump’.
No, your ad hominems don’t cut it.
I’m done. You lost any claim to serious consideration when you played the ‘Anyone who disagrees with me is unAmerican’ card. Run along now, I’m sure you can find someone stupid enough to buy your line.
Both of these are violative of the instruction in post #70. While we don’t track notes, I have an adequate memory. I’m giving a pass this time in the interest of magnanimity - no further.
And as we’ve past the point of useful discussion, I’m closing this thread.
[/moderating]