Did Russians interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections and is such interference acceptable?

[Ion]

What makes people think they aren’t looking at everyone that had contact with Russians? If her or her people were talking to Russians they’ll show up in the surveillance like Trumps folks did.

Indeed. And not only. The investigation will include Clinton fund for the same reason. It was not the Russians voting for Trump, the people decided the president.

 

[Michael68]

What makes people think they aren’t looking at everyone that had contact with Russians? If her or her people were talking to Russians they’ll show up in the surveillance like Trumps folks did.

We would have known it by now. Nobody is looking at Clinton.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Indeed. And not only. The investigation will include Clinton fund for the same reason. It was not the Russians voting for Trump, the people decided the president.

hard to think the DNC disclosures changed anybody’s vote. I, for one, already opposed Clinton. All the Podesta disclosures did was confirm for me how anti-Catholic the Dem party really is. No surprise, but confirmation is always helpful to a decision one already made.

And no committed Dem was going to vote for Trump, though lots of people worried about their livelihoods changed from Dem voting to Repu, but not because of the DNC disclosures. After Hillary telling, e.g., WVa miners that she had some nice welfare to replace their well-paying jobs, does anybody really think the DNC disclosures changed their votes?

Besides, even if a few people changed their votes because of them, they were probably more than offset by the Dem votes cast by dead people, illegal aliens and repeat voters.

 

[Ion]

hard to think the DNC disclosures changed anybody’s vote. I, for one, already opposed Clinton. All the Podesta disclosures did was confirm for me how anti-Catholic the Dem party really is. No surprise, but confirmation is always helpful to a decision one already made.

And no committed Dem was going to vote for Trump, though lots of people worried about their livelihoods changed from Dem voting to Repu, but not because of the DNC disclosures. After Hillary telling, e.g., WVa miners that she had some nice welfare to replace their well-paying jobs, does anybody really think the DNC disclosures changed their votes?

Besides, even if a few people changed their votes because of them, they were probably more than offset by the Dem votes cast by dead people, illegal aliens and repeat voters.

I remember on Fox they were saying that the polls did not change after the WikiLeaks. The leaks made Trump happy because there was an opportunity to bring into attention the scandals in which the Clinton’s were involved.I think the Republicans want the Russia investigation because it is possible Putin played both ends, bribing Clinton on one end and creating scandal against Clinton on the other end? But creatingtp that scandal would have been to thin to matter too much, So Gowdy will look for the money or other values.

 

[Michael68]

Hillary Clinton is blaming the voters and NOT Russia! lol

 

[lynnvinc]

hard to think the DNC disclosures changed anybody’s vote. I, for one, already opposed Clinton. All the Podesta disclosures did was confirm for me how anti-Catholic the Dem party really is. No surprise, but confirmation is always helpful to a decision one already made.

And no committed Dem was going to vote for Trump, though lots of people worried about their livelihoods changed from Dem voting to Repu, but not because of the DNC disclosures. After Hillary telling, e.g., WVa miners that she had some nice welfare to replace their well-paying jobs, does anybody really think the DNC disclosures changed their votes?

Besides, even if a few people changed their votes because of them, they were probably more than offset by the Dem votes cast by dead people, illegal aliens and repeat voters.

What about voter suppression of potential Democrat voters? Nobody ever talks about that – all the devious tactics the Koch brothers and other Republicans have come up with to suppress the voting of people who would likely vote Democrat – that’s probably much more than the imaginary 3 million illegal voters Trump cooked up from nothing.

Now I’ve figured their new tactic for voter suppression. Repeal the ACA and let a lot of people die. Then they won’t be able to vote for Democrats anymore. That occurred to me when a woman at a Congressman’s town hall said she and her family members would have been dead if not for the ACA. Yep repeal the ACA, just let 'em (esp nuisance people like her and her family) die.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

What about voter suppression of potential Democrat voters? Nobody ever talks about that – all the devious tactics the Koch brothers and other Republicans have come up with to suppress the voting of people who would likely vote Democrat – that’s probably much more than the imaginary 3 million illegal voters Trump cooked up from nothing.

Now I’ve figured their new tactic for voter suppression. Repeal the ACA and let a lot of people die. Then they won’t be able to vote for Democrats anymore. That occurred to me when a woman at a Congressman’s town hall said she and her family members would have been dead if not for the ACA. Yep repeal the ACA, just let 'em (esp nuisance people like her and her family) die.

By your unprovable ACA comment, unless you are an oracle, I’ll raise you and say Democrats best tactic for voter suppression is their undying (npi) love of abortion and its enshrinement in their party’s platform. Dead babies can’t vote.

 

[Michael68]

What about voter suppression of potential Democrat voters? Nobody ever talks about that – all the devious tactics the Koch brothers and other Republicans have come up with to suppress the voting of people who would likely vote Democrat – that’s probably much more than the imaginary 3 million illegal voters Trump cooked up from nothing.

Now I’ve figured their new tactic for voter suppression. Repeal the ACA and let a lot of people die. Then they won’t be able to vote for Democrats anymore. That occurred to me when a woman at a Congressman’s town hall said she and her family members would have been dead if not for the ACA. Yep repeal the ACA, just let 'em (esp nuisance people like her and her family) die.

What voter suppression?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Remember when Ted Kennedy asked the Russians to ‘interfere’?

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."

**
**

Teddy Kennedy asked the Russians to meddle in the 1984 campaign for the purpose of defeating Ronald Reagan, the man who would go on to defeat the Soviet Union and win the Cold War. The memorandum, which shows Kennedy’s efforts to derail Reagan’s attempt to build up our nuclear deterrent in Europe, received little or no attention until the publication of Paul Kengor’s book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, in 2006.

Paul Kengor is a Catholic author, who writes a lot and who appears on BookTV.

Kengor is very much worth reading.

Check Amazon books for his work.

 

[St_Francis]

What about voter suppression of potential Democrat voters? Nobody ever talks about that – all the devious tactics the Koch brothers and other Republicans have come up with to suppress the voting of people who would likely vote Democrat – that’s probably much more than the imaginary 3 million illegal voters Trump cooked up from nothing.

Now I’ve figured their new tactic for voter suppression. Repeal the ACA and let a lot of people die. Then they won’t be able to vote for Democrats anymore. That occurred to me when a woman at a Congressman’s town hall said she and her family members would have been dead if not for the ACA. Yep repeal the ACA, just let 'em (esp nuisance people like her and her family) die.

I’m interested in finding out “all the devious tactics;” I thought there was only Voter ID?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Now I’ve figured their new tactic for voter suppression. Repeal the ACA and let a lot of people die. Then they won’t be able to vote for Democrats anymore. That occurred to me when a woman at a Congressman’s town hall said she and her family members would have been dead if not for the ACA. Yep repeal the ACA, just let 'em (esp nuisance people like her and her family) die.

So I will not be forced into financially supporting people whose ideology and interests are fundamentally opposed to mine? I can live with that.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc View Post
Now I’ve figured their new tactic for voter suppression. Repeal the ACA and let a lot of people die. Then they won’t be able to vote for Democrats anymore. That occurred to me when a woman at a Congressman’s town hall said she and her family members would have been dead if not for the ACA. Yep repeal the ACA, just let 'em (esp nuisance people like her and her family) die.

I’d prefer to leave medical statements to medical professionals, not ethos appeals for me to involuntarily for someone else.

Also, it’s already been shown that a lot of people at these town halls are progressive activists just making trouble. If that is the case more often than naught, the Democrats are going to have any chance of their gains from the current GOP issues blunted.

Furthermore, the intention of repealing the ACA isn’t to make things worse but better. And I thought that liberals were all for good intentions regardless of the results. But, repeal of the ACA will be good for all of us long-term. Unquestionably the right decision.

Besides, since the Democrats keep saying how much they :bighanky: care, this woman should just be able to call up a Democrat politician or professor and get them to cover her expenses.

 

[SuperLuigi]

all the devious tactics the Koch brothers and other Republicans have come up with to suppress the voting of people who would likely vote Democrat – that’s probably much more than the imaginary 3 million illegal voters Trump cooked up from nothing.

The only evidence of voter suppression I have seen has been a Democrat showing bias in getting people registered to vote.

 

[SuperLuigi]

So I will not be forced into financially supporting people whose ideology and interests are fundamentally opposed to mine? I can live with that.

I think you were supposed to see “if you dare support to repeal this, it will be YOUR fault that people die, even if it’s a really bad health plan”. :yup:

 

[JonNC]

Now I’ve figured their new tactic for voter suppression. Repeal the ACA and let a lot of people die. Then they won’t be able to vote for Democrats anymore. That occurred to me when a woman at a Congressman’s town hall said she and her family members would have been dead if not for the ACA. Yep repeal the ACA, just let 'em (esp nuisance people like her and her family) die.

This seems like a remarkable condemnation of Catholic charities and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Am I mistaken?
Are you of the belief that only government can take care of people?

 

[lynnvinc]

This seems like a remarkable condemnation of Catholic charities and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Am I mistaken?
Are you of the belief that only government can take care of people?

You tell me which pope said Catholics must follow the principle of subsidiarity by itself, without also following solidarity.

So if a baby doesn’t have parents who can care for it, that is the baby’s problem and it should be left to care for itself, and if it can’t, then it should die (sort of a survival of the fittest principle)…according to the Ayn Rand (Paul Ryan) stand-alone subsidiarity principle. Otherwise we’ll be overrun by weaklings.

Or, people who might vote for Democrats, being appreciative of the gov help they received in tough times (which was my point that you missed)

 

[JonNC]

You tell me which pope said Catholics must follow the principle of subsidiarity by itself, without also following solidarity.

So if a baby doesn’t have parents who can care for it, that is the baby’s problem and it should be left to care for itself, and if it can’t, then it should die (sort of a survival of the fittest principle)…according to the Ayn Rand (Paul Ryan) stand-alone subsidiarity principle. Otherwise we’ll be overrun by weaklings.

Or, people who might vote for Democrats, being appreciative of the gov help they received in tough times (which was my point that you missed)

It isn’t the general government’s job. It is the job of the Church, of charities, even of local and state government if necessary. But to say that people will die simply because ACA no longer existed is an attack on Christian charity, and the goodwill of the American people. Your hyperbolic example above seems to exclude this possibility.
It is a false, and I believe dangerous, dichotomy that says if the government doesn’t take care of the least of His children, no one will. And no, I personally am not appreciative of Democrats or Republicans who vote to allow the general government to do things it has no enumerated power to do.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So if a baby doesn’t have parents who can care for it, that is the baby’s problem and it should be left to care for itself, and if it can’t, then it should die (sort of a survival of the fittest principle)…according to the Ayn Rand (Paul Ryan) stand-alone subsidiarity principle. Otherwise we’ll be overrun by weaklings.

Or, people who might vote for Democrats, being appreciative of the gov help they received in tough times (which was my point that you missed)

Babies whose parents can’t (or more likely, won’t) take care of it should be taken away and given to adoptive parents. For a long time, at least where I live, there was a lot of child neglect among the dopers, and nobody did anything about it other than throw ever more services at the parents; something that was not working. Then the state set up a system to finance lawyers for the juvenile office to terminate parental rights and put children up for adoption. The adoption demand is very large, and not just for babies either.

Voting for the Dems has not, for decades, done anything for those who are experiencing rough times. Abortion on demand is the sole and only value that party upholds seriously anymore.

 

[J_Peterson]

This seems like a remarkable condemnation of Catholic charities and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Am I mistaken?
Are you of the belief that only government can take care of people?

Did charity provide health insurance for folks prior to the ACA?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Did charity provide health insurance for folks prior to the ACA?

I don’t imagine it did very much. Charities don’t buy insurance, they pay for, or provide, care.

But Obamacare doesn’t provide insurance either, for some 30 million Americans. The largest segment of insurance is provided, not by Obamacare, but by employers; something Obamacare has made more difficult and more costly.