Iawai'a, I will try my best to be civil here. The Constitutional process was adhered to in every way as far as I know and you have not indicated a darn thing to refute the evidence. Now the only influence I see that happened was the dissemination of Clinton's emails and those of some of her workers. The silly woman brought it on herself for the most part, partially by violating the law and not using a secure server. One of the most damaging pieces of information was the email to her daughter revealing what she knew about Benghazi while she lied her ass off the American people. Now you know Wiki claimed this coup but apparently you and the Russian hair on fire gang, want it to be the Russians. But what ever, neither is a Constitutional crisis. Nor is it unpatriotic or unconstitutional for me to say, I say it is wonderful that the worse candidate of my life time was exposed as incompetent and a liar. It matter not whether the revelation came from China, Russia, Wiki, MSNBC, or Fox. Thank goodness it came, and the incompetent liar one is not the President.
stating that the nefarious actions of a hostile state to influence our elections were "a good thing", is mutually self exclusive with a position defending your countries election process, part of our constitution.
It's not a majority, even if you count just the actual voters. Clinton got 48.20% - not a majority. If you look at her 63M votes, it's 63M out of 321.4M, or 19.6% of the people. Of that 19.6%, or 63M, maybe 1M have actively protested (are loud), or .3%. Loud minority stands.
The vote wasn't about impeachment, so that's irrelevant. And I didn't say that there is currently a loud majority in favor of impeachment (I don't believe there is, yet). I said "what if". barfo
You do realize that against a steady shit storm of (trumped up?) sexual assault accusations against Trump vs. the revelations in Clinton's emails, the people chose Trump. You also do realize that the media conspired with the Clinton campaign to defeat Sanders and then Trump? Free speech is constitutional, be it from foreigners or citizens. Or even George Soros, who is both (dual citizenship). http://observer.com/2016/11/new-dnc-emails-expose-more-dnc-media-clinton-campaign-collusion/ “CNN is looking for questions,” read an April email between DNC staff asking to compile questions for CNN to ask Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in an interview. Questions for Donald Trump were also compiled by DNC staff to be asked on CNN. Emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta have revealed how partisan CNN has behaved. A supposed media network and its journalists have been colluding behind the scenes with the DNC and Clinton campaign to propagate any preferred narrative of the Democratic Party. In a recently-released email from Podesta, WikiLeaks revealed CNBC’s John Harwood asked Podesta what questions he should ask Jeb Bush in an interview. The interview was published in September 2015. The Daily Caller first reported that Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank was fed Trump research from the DNC upon request for an anti-Trump article published in April. The media’s unethical relationship has yielded no reprimand besides CNN severing ties with DNC interim chair Donna Brazile after emails revealed she forwarded debate questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of time. But CNN did so only to cover themselves, as they have yet to provide an explanation as to how Brazile acquired those questions in the first place. Another DNC email revealed DNC communications strategist Deshundra Jackson had a mole contact in the Sanders campaign to provide her staff with information. “I pinged my friend on his campaign but she was let go a few days ago. I don’t have any other leads,” wrote Jackson in regards to what Sanders would be discussing at a press conference. In early May, DNC staff members coordinated edits of Clinton email blasts with the Clinton campaign in an email chain. DNC staff was also invited to join the Hillary For America team on Slack around the same time, revealing that the DNC directly worked for the Clinton campaign before the Democratic primaries had ended. The close relationship the DNC and mainstream media maintained with Clintonthroughout the primaries is comparable to propaganda tactics employed in dictatorships. Hillary Clinton and her campaign subverted democracy in tandem with the DNC and mainstream media outlet to ensure her coronation as the Democratic presidential nominee. The stain left on democracy by this collusion won’t ever be forgotten by Bernie Sanders supporters.
The vote was about the opposite of impeachment. Loud minority shouldn't be able to nullify the results of our elections.
you are some how trying to equate the constitutional right of an idividual's freedom of speech to the ILLEGAL actions of an adversarial nation in its attempts to influence and coerce the presidential elections? that dog won't hunt. to defend it using this argument suggests that regime change in this country by foreign nations is legal and ethical. the ends justify the means again. I know that we disagree on unlimited monies in our elections but these defenses seem to be extreme positions.
Based on what you have now, it sure as hell would. But you don't have shit. What you do have is a snipe hunt, or witch hunt perhaps? Naw, closer to hunt for hope. Fuck! I really never knew so many were so gullible, ready to dance to a tune of wail, as a last hope.
Ok Iawai's I suspect you are indeed a Clinton supporter so we will never agree on her suitability. But you could point out specifically what part of the Constitutional process in electing the president has be violated. That would indeed be egregious. Point it out there by correct me. I see nothing of the kind. I think the wisdom of the American people rejected her and that is very Constitutional.
Jeez Marz, all you had to do was count up the number of folks who voted for Trump and you'd have had the exact number........
I I have never argued her suitability but indeed agreed that she was a very poor candidate for the office, which I reaffirm here. you stated that the illegal interfereance in the elections were a good thing in your opinion, partially justified because of your opinion of Clinton's unfitness for office. you believed as stated , that regardless of means, it was justifiable as long as she was denied the office. part of the mechanism that denied her election was the results of a foreign, nay enemy, nation engaging in illegal actions to prevent her from gaining office. do you defend russia's right to interfere in our election process? is it a constitutional right of the Russians to do so? is it also not true that by our very discussion here that they have succeeded in undermining the confidence of future elections? my point about the tightness of the race and how truly small the margin of victory was in key states only exacberates this. if they were successful in swaying a very small number of voters in a targeted espionage operation against our process than the rights and protections to the value of each individuals vote is eroded and violated. by your saying what ever the means to keep her out, even if they were as described flies in the face of valueing the process of electing our president. if its ok as long as it was Clinton, how loud would be your wailing about a president that you abhor for all intents and purposes. I don't hate trump, didn't like Clinton but I am fired up about foreign interference in MY country's election.
You and your orange buddy seem awfully defensive about this. An innocent party would welcome the investigation and inevitable eventual exoneration. But that doesn't seem to be your approach. Curious. barfo
Now that is your right and fair enough. I am not so worked about it. I see it as more of thing the Democrats need to fix, perhaps especially their candidates and the DNC. Make you system hack proof and drop the wail. I don't know the Russians swayed one friggin vote!!! I don't even know if they tried!! They didn't create any of the information you give them credit for swinging the deal to Trump. The Russian did not write one email. The did not lie about one email. They did not screw Bernie, They did not collude with the media about debate questions. There is nothing they could do to get me to vote for Trump! You must know I did it because they was no way in hell I vote for Hillary. Others have voted for the Libertarian vote the same reasons I don't think you can find one voter that was suede by, anything you might attribute to the Russians, it is just a reach too far.
Naw, no crime, nothing to prove. So of course it is not my approach. I find it much like slander, just an attempt to harm. But in this case, it is sedition.
where o' where did the hack come from? let me see, fat guy in jersey? nah, north korea cause they preferred trump? nah you won"t see or be swayed but you could certainly look at it from a logical perspective and connect the dots, nsa paper lends no credence? obstinacy to therum as proofs are validated. they hacked the election process.
But you don't actually know what happened (or didn't). Neither do I. The FBI, the DNI, the CIA, the House, the Senate, etc. etc. think there is probable cause to investigate. You can claim they are all lying, but maybe that's just as slanderous/seditious as claiming the President is lying. barfo
I doubt there is enough. But I will give it to you that there are some that lack the guts to say what they should.
