Post deleted by User.
Random Politics & Religion #26 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #26
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » You honestly think everything occurs in a vacuum? Like I said before, you offer no reason to your arguments. You don't even back your arguments up at all. We are "supposed" to take your word for it, because you said it? For somebody who attacks a source with nothing, you certainly spout what you have.... Your "source" sample size is so small (20 cases of fraud) it should be dismissed right away, even polls with sample sizes in the thousands can be quite inaccurate. And you wonder why we are all saying you, along with Pleebo, Vic, Candlejack, and that unidentified goo, are all suffering from sever cases of TDS. You 5 really should go seek some help. The whole scan of liberalism is starting to unravel. They can't win by being honest and they cant win unless they cheat. Let's face it.
Only a few elections would matter in regards to voter fraud. Nearly all of them local elections, some state, very very few national (Congress only). If you remove all votes obtained by voter fraud, you won't change any presidential results (apparently, Shiroi only thinks that Americans vote for Presidents and not local/state/Congress officials). Voter fraud exists. Denying evidence showing it exists because you don't like the outcome of a national election isn't going to help your case. Denying evidence because you want to chase the specter of "Jim Crow Laws" that do not exist anymore isn't going to help your case. Denying evidence because you said so is most certainly not going to help your case. Maybe some personal reflection would help you out more than worrying about what happened in 1860. And more evidence that Shiroi is cherry picking arguments.
He cherry picks one case, while completely denying every other case that was sourced in the article I sourced. Like it was never even mentioned. But hey, at least he admits that the one case he cherry picked exists. So, progress maybe? Meanwhile the transcript of the conversations between Trump and Nieto from Jan 27 were released to the public.
Revealing that his true negotiating style is akin to begging and pleading. Well, Jim Acosta is looking like an absolute idiot again. Usually when you're proven wrong about something you should shut up, Jim, and not draw a ton of attention to it.
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Meanwhile the transcript of the conversations between Trump and Nieto from Jan 27 were released to the public. Revealing that his true negotiating style is akin to begging and pleading. Liberals cheering the felonious leaking just because it "hurts" Trump.
Disgraceful... Nausi said: » Liberals cheering the felonious leaking just because it "hurts" Trump. Disgraceful... Far more disgraceful. Amusing though. Candlejack said: » From Reuters: Quote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Grand jury subpoenas have been issued in connection with a June 2016 meeting that included President Donald Trump's son, his son-in-law and a Russian lawyer, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday. The sources added that special counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury in Washington to investigate allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Russia has loomed large over the first six months of the Trump presidency, with U.S. congressional panels also investigating the Russian election interference that U.S. intelligence agencies believe was meant to tilt the vote in Trump's favor. Moscow denies any meddling and Trump denies any collusion by his campaign, while regularly denouncing the investigations as political witch hunts. Mueller's use of a grand jury could give him expansive tools to pursue evidence, including issuing subpoenas and compelling witnesses to testify. The impaneling of the grand jury was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. A grand jury is a group of ordinary citizens who, working behind closed doors, considers evidence and potential criminal wrongdoing that a prosecutor is investigating and decide on whether charges should be brought. U.S. stocks and the dollar weakened following the news, while U.S. Treasury securities gained. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Mueller, who was appointed special counsel in May, brought a former U.S. Justice Department official to join his investigative team. Greg Andres started on Tuesday, becoming the 16th lawyer on the team. Garuda.Chanti said: » Amusing though. Another bipartisan looggie in Trump's eye.
Senators unveil two proposals to protect Mueller’s Russia probe WAPo Quote: Two bipartisan pairs of senators unveiled legislation Thursday to prevent President Trump from firing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III without cause — or at least a reason good enough to convince a panel of federal judges. Senators have raised concerns that the president might try to rearrange his administration to get rid of Mueller, who is spearheading a probe of Russia’s alleged interference in the presidential election and any possible collusion between the Kremlin and members of the Trump campaign and transition teams. While Trump cannot fire Mueller directly, many have raised concerns in recent weeks that he might seek to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from all campaign-related matters, including the Russia probe. Sessions’s deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, said he would not fire Mueller without cause — but a new attorney general could supersede his authority. The blowback from Congress to Trump’s recent public criticism of Sessions was sharp and substantial, and his allies in the GOP told the president to back off. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) even indicated that he would not make time in the Senate schedule to consider a new attorney general nominee. This week, there have been reports that new White House chief of staff John F. Kelly told Sessions he would not have to worry about losing his job. But that has not quieted the concerns of the Democrats and Republicans behind the latest efforts to safeguard Mueller — and, by extension, his Russia probe — from presidential interference. “The Mueller situation really gave rise to our thinking about how we can address this, address the current situation,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), the co-author of one of the proposals. He called the effort “a great opportunity, in perpetuity, for us to be able to communicate to the American people that actions were appropriate — or if not, then not,” if an administration ever attempts to terminate a special counsel’s term. The two proposals — one from Tillis and Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) and the other from Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) — each seek to check the executive branch’s ability to fire a special counsel, by putting the question to a three-judge panel from the federal courts. They differ in when that panel gets to weigh in on the decision. Graham and Booker’s proposal, which also has backing from Judiciary Committee Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), would require the judges panel to review any attorney general’s decision to fire a special counsel before that firing could take effect. Tillis and Coons’ proposal would let the firing proceed according to current regulations, which they codify in the bill — but the fired special counsel would have the right to contest the administration’s decision in court. In that scenario, the judges panel would have two weeks from the day the special counsel’s case is filed to complete their review and determine whether the termination was acceptable. Tillis and Coons, who pulled their bill together over the past two days, explained the difference as one to ensure that the legislation does not run afoul of constitutional separation of powers. Both senators, as well as Graham, said they expect they may merge their efforts after lawmakers return to Washington in September. “I think we maybe can have a meeting of the minds. I really appreciate them doing it,” Graham said Thursday of Tillis and Coons’s bill. “I just have a different way of doing it.” Phoenix.Xantavia said: » Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Meanwhile the transcript of the conversations between Trump and Nieto from Jan 27 were released to the public. Revealing that his true negotiating style is akin to begging and pleading. Well it's not like they issued a gag order to Mexico. Garuda.Chanti said: » So much winning.... Perfect time to go on an extended vacation. Nausi said: » Candlejack said: » From Reuters: Quote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Grand jury subpoenas have been issued in connection with a June 2016 meeting that included President Donald Trump's son, his son-in-law and a Russian lawyer, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday. The sources added that special counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury in Washington to investigate allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Russia has loomed large over the first six months of the Trump presidency, with U.S. congressional panels also investigating the Russian election interference that U.S. intelligence agencies believe was meant to tilt the vote in Trump's favor. Moscow denies any meddling and Trump denies any collusion by his campaign, while regularly denouncing the investigations as political witch hunts. Mueller's use of a grand jury could give him expansive tools to pursue evidence, including issuing subpoenas and compelling witnesses to testify. The impaneling of the grand jury was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. A grand jury is a group of ordinary citizens who, working behind closed doors, considers evidence and potential criminal wrongdoing that a prosecutor is investigating and decide on whether charges should be brought. U.S. stocks and the dollar weakened following the news, while U.S. Treasury securities gained. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Mueller, who was appointed special counsel in May, brought a former U.S. Justice Department official to join his investigative team. Greg Andres started on Tuesday, becoming the 16th lawyer on the team. You should probably ask the resident statistician how often grand juries don't return with an indictment. Keep dreaming.
They don't have anything at all. Everyone knows that. How can you convict a man based on no evidence, nor a crime occurred? It's almost like you liberals want to destroy civilization because you lost an election. Stop acting like spoiled children and get over it. One is always welcome to do the actual research. But you don't really have to since it's available to the public.
2011: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs11st.pdf , 193k cases, 22 no true bills. 2012: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs12st.pdf, 196k cases, 14 no true bill 2013: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs13st.pdf 197k cases, 5 no true bill 1999: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cfjs99.pdf 114k cases, 35 no true bill Feel free to take a look at bjs.gov if you think the years are being cherry picked. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-03/you-can-thank-leakers-for-new-russia-sanctions
Interesting read sure to aggravate our resident members of the Salt-Right. Will explain why they want McMasters head lately. Quote: Not everyone agrees that what Rice did was improper. She was after all receiving much new intelligence about Russia's role in the election, some of which suggested coordination with Trump associates. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has concluded that Rice did nothing wrong, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to me on condition of anonymity. That might explain why Trump has yet to declassify more information on the prior administration's unmasking requests. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|