earthmansurfer wrote:Well, I know we helped to creat AlQaida http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/

It appears that Hillary and Obama helped to create ISIS as well. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260162-santorum-obama-hillary-created-isis
"ISIS is a creation of a political decision by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to abandon Iraq — against all of our generals’ recommendations, against all of the policy recommendations,” Santorum told supporters at the Florida GOP’s Sunshine Summit in Orlando on Saturday."

The Wikileaks emails show Hillary sold weapons to ISIS. https://therealstrategy.com/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-isis/

So, I'd be careful with our bombing/interventionist policy and subsequently with our immigration policy.

EMS, did you read any of the articles you linked to or did you just find some quotes that fit your slant on things and post them?

Again, this is completely sloppy and middle school level offer of an argument. Literally low low low intellect stuff and I don't feel bad about categorizing it that way and calling you out in this manor.

You offer up this article as your argument that Hillary and Obama helped create ISIS. Your words: "It appears that Hillary and Obama helped to create ISIS as well." with this to follow:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260162-santorum-obama-hillary-created-isis
"ISIS is a creation of a political decision by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to abandon Iraq — against all of our generals’ recommendations, against all of the policy recommendations,” Santorum told supporters at the Florida GOP’s Sunshine Summit in Orlando on Saturday."

Do you ask this as a question or suggestion ("It appears that...") because you don't know how ISIS was created and just found someone who said something that you may agree about? Do you agree with your quoted - Santorum - and feel that he offered up an explanation of why Hilary and Obama should be linked to ISIS and Iraq? Are you familiar with the details of Iraq? Do you understand who and why America pulled out of Iraq?

This is why I think you don't actually read and understand the things you post, why you just try to find small snippets of quotes or articles that fit your argument no matter the context and then you spam this thread with them. That's middle school level comprehension of what you are talking about and purely a dissemination of very very very bad information.

Do you know who Santorum is? Why do you feel is he is a worthwhile source of unbiased information on this topic? Enough so that you would offer it up as a backdrop to supporting whatever argument or point you are making?

This particular article was in regards to the Paris bombing. It offered zero details on the Iraq pull out by the USA outside of a spastic and unrelated and grossly off-topic quote from Santorum. Why did you feel this was worthy of you putting it out there for us? What does this article and quote offer us beside someone saying something you like?

You are dumbing down this thread man. I hope you understand this and get more particular and spend more time thinking about and researching and learning before you post. Your participation is heavy here and I want to make sure it is also right, pertinent, and informed; I don't care which side or opinion you have but I do care that you do it with some reasonability. Right now you are not and I would like it to stop.

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

The reason for it is to stop manipulation of votes. Every time there is a count there will be a chance for more manipulation. It has nothing to do with accuracy. You are going to create a never ending cycle of recounting.

That's a bold statement. So, recounts bad?

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

The reason for it is to stop manipulation of votes. Every time there is a count there will be a chance for more manipulation. It has nothing to do with accuracy. You are going to create a never ending cycle of recounting.

That's a bold statement. So, recounts bad?

Yes recount is bad. It sets a bad precedence and makes the system look broke and untrustworthy. Think about this scenario if Hillary does come out with more votes. What is that going to do to America? She conceded and then the votes come to show she won now what about those that voted for Trump? There is probably going to be an uproar that is going to further split the nation. This recounting is setting a very dangerous precedence.

recounts have had a place in our voting system, so it is not a new precedent. also, I think recounts are there to ensure proper tallying.

when you have people running around claiming that millions of illegal voters cast ballots both before and after the election without an iota of evidence, THAT sets a bad precedence. And especially so when it is done by a president-elect

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

The reason for it is to stop manipulation of votes. Every time there is a count there will be a chance for more manipulation. It has nothing to do with accuracy. You are going to create a never ending cycle of recounting.

That's a bold statement. So, recounts bad?

Yes recount is bad. It sets a bad precedence and makes the system look broke and untrustworthy. Think about this scenario if Hillary does come out with more votes. What is that going to do to America? She conceded and then the votes come to show she won now what about those that voted for Trump? There is probably going to be an uproar that is going to further split the nation. This recounting is setting a very dangerous precedence.

recounts have had a place in our voting system, so it is not a new precedent. also, I think recounts are there to ensure proper tallying.

when you have people running around claiming that millions of illegal voters cast ballots both before and after the election without an iota of evidence, THAT sets a bad precedence. And especially so when it is done by a president-elect

Martin they do have a place. But when your trying to flip three states now it becomes a mockery of the system. I don't see Hillary asking for recounts of the states she won. Why don't they ask for recount of California where Trump said there is voter fraud.

Why doesn't Trump if he is making that claim? It's not Hilary's place to do so.

And you have recounts where votes are close, that makes sense. So to say that "when you are trying to flip states" that would be rhetorical. You don't ask to have recounts where there is not that possibility. When you ask for state level recounts, you put in hard cash to do so FYI. Somewhere in the $1M range I think.

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

The reason for it is to stop manipulation of votes. Every time there is a count there will be a chance for more manipulation. It has nothing to do with accuracy. You are going to create a never ending cycle of recounting.

That's a bold statement. So, recounts bad?

Yes recount is bad. It sets a bad precedence and makes the system look broke and untrustworthy. Think about this scenario if Hillary does come out with more votes. What is that going to do to America? She conceded and then the votes come to show she won now what about those that voted for Trump? There is probably going to be an uproar that is going to further split the nation. This recounting is setting a very dangerous precedence.

recounts have had a place in our voting system, so it is not a new precedent. also, I think recounts are there to ensure proper tallying.

when you have people running around claiming that millions of illegal voters cast ballots both before and after the election without an iota of evidence, THAT sets a bad precedence. And especially so when it is done by a president-elect

Martin they do have a place. But when your trying to flip three states now it becomes a mockery of the system. I don't see Hillary asking for recounts of the states she won. Why don't they ask for recount of California where Trump said there is voter fraud.

Why doesn't Trump if he is making that claim? It's not Hilary's place to do so.

And you have recounts where votes are close, that makes sense. So to say that "when you are trying to flip states" that would be rhetorical. You don't ask to have recounts where there is not that possibility. When you ask for state level recounts, you put in hard cash to do so FYI. Somewhere in the $1M range I think.

It's only convenient when it's for the win right Martin. This has nothing to do with voter fraud or improper tallying. This is an example of not being able to deal with defeat. Rarely has a recount overturned the result.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

The reason for it is to stop manipulation of votes. Every time there is a count there will be a chance for more manipulation. It has nothing to do with accuracy. You are going to create a never ending cycle of recounting.

That's a bold statement. So, recounts bad?

Yes recount is bad. It sets a bad precedence and makes the system look broke and untrustworthy. Think about this scenario if Hillary does come out with more votes. What is that going to do to America? She conceded and then the votes come to show she won now what about those that voted for Trump? There is probably going to be an uproar that is going to further split the nation. This recounting is setting a very dangerous precedence.

Hopefully lead to an investigation into what went wrong. It's very dangerous to not care about the accuracy of the votes and only care about maintaining the visual appearance of a Democracy.
I'd much rather have a valid recount in all 50 states (and I suspect Stein and Clinton would too) but there isn't *yet* the funding for that. If things are way off in the hand count in Wisconsin or Michigan, it would get the painful process of fixing our democracy started. If you stop the recounts, there is no hope of that happening and we'll be indefinitely relying on these paperless machines to tell us who won elections.

What if the result of the recount is the fraud?

Thought it was an interesting piece because it takes (in part) an analytics view to tracking issues regarding race. FYI

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS, serious question, since I know you wanted recounts: How do you feel about the Trump administration suing to try to stop every possible hand recount? Why are they so afraid to have the ballots counted?

The reason for it is to stop manipulation of votes. Every time there is a count there will be a chance for more manipulation. It has nothing to do with accuracy. You are going to create a never ending cycle of recounting.

That's a bold statement. So, recounts bad?

Yes recount is bad. It sets a bad precedence and makes the system look broke and untrustworthy. Think about this scenario if Hillary does come out with more votes. What is that going to do to America? She conceded and then the votes come to show she won now what about those that voted for Trump? There is probably going to be an uproar that is going to further split the nation. This recounting is setting a very dangerous precedence.

recounts have had a place in our voting system, so it is not a new precedent. also, I think recounts are there to ensure proper tallying.

when you have people running around claiming that millions of illegal voters cast ballots both before and after the election without an iota of evidence, THAT sets a bad precedence. And especially so when it is done by a president-elect

Martin they do have a place. But when your trying to flip three states now it becomes a mockery of the system. I don't see Hillary asking for recounts of the states she won. Why don't they ask for recount of California where Trump said there is voter fraud.

Why doesn't Trump if he is making that claim? It's not Hilary's place to do so.

And you have recounts where votes are close, that makes sense. So to say that "when you are trying to flip states" that would be rhetorical. You don't ask to have recounts where there is not that possibility. When you ask for state level recounts, you put in hard cash to do so FYI. Somewhere in the $1M range I think.

It's only convenient when it's for the win right Martin. This has nothing to do with voter fraud or improper tallying. This is an example of not being able to deal with defeat. Rarely has a recount overturned the result.

I don't understand that comment? Nor do I understand why this wouldn't be about proper tallying but rather, as you state, not being able to deal with defeat. It was everything to do with thinking the result may not be accurate and indeed flip to something in a different manor

GustavBahler wrote:https://tressiemc.com/digitalsociologies/racism-with-no-racists-the-president-trump-conundrum/

Thought it was an interesting piece because it takes (in part) an analytics view to tracking issues regarding race. FYI

thanks for this. here's the end of the article:

What is “racial” and why would a major media organization favor it over “racism”?

It could be about part of speech. Racism is a noun. Racial is an adjective. As a writerly person, adjectives are more colorful in prose.

But, it is also true that nouns tend to move action better are certainly more useful in the old school “5 Ws” of journalism construction: who, what, where, when, why.

An adjective modifies a noun. Maybe it is less threatening to say that a person, place or thing has some characteristics related to race than it is to say the person, place or thing is inherently characteristic of racism.

The issue there is the definition of “racial” — of or about race — isn’t at all what racism is. Racism is not about race. Everybody has race. And, that’s not how we’re using it. Racism is about racial hatred, animus rooted in racial superiority beliefs that often justify the unfair allocation of resources, both cultural and material.

Do you catch that?

Racial describes race.

Racism describes animus and stratification.

They are not interchangeable.

Racial, being related to race, is not what President-elect Donald Trump means when he says a Mexican judge cannot fairly adjudicate his legal case or Muslims are inherently violent or blacks are morally inferior.

He is describing animus rooted in beliefs of racial superiority.

If the media cannot call that racism, will they be able to cover President-elect Donald Trump?

And while they figure it out, how bad will the lives of racial people get while racism hides behind euphemisms?

Time will tell.

But will the New York Times?

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:CNN the Fake News Network caught in the act (again)

EMS, I'm going to ask you to stop posting stuff like this, it doesn't add anything to the conversation and is unsubstantiated at best. There is zero context here and can be reflective of a number of things.

If you want to argue a point of view, please do so.

Sure, the term "Fake News" is being used to mean, non MSM news. But CNN (and other "MSM" networks) have been caught putting out Fake news on a number of occasions.
That video simply showed one occasion and caught on tape.