Biden's follies

[The Frankish Reich]

8 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

I go with option A1 and A2 for that last election and I think it will be the same next election. 

And you fail, because there simply isn't proof of either A1 or A2.

That's why we're seeing the shift to the "B" claims - the news media, in cahoots with law enforcement, tried to suppress the truth about Hunter and his laptop.

Oh, and I realize there's another category of claims, so I've added "C" to my categories in the original post.

[wnyguy]

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

And you fail, because there simply isn't proof of either A1 or A2.

That's why we're seeing the shift to the "B" claims - the news media, in cahoots with law enforcement, tried to suppress the truth about Hunter and his laptop.

Oh, and I realize there's another category of claims, so I've added "C" to my categories in the original post.

I don't see a C option there ?

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

I don't see a C option there ?

Added now. The Stacy Abrams type claim.

[wnyguy]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Added now. The Stacy Abrams type claim.

Thanks, I now choose option A!, A2, and C.

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, wnyguy said:

Thanks, I now choose option A!, A2, and C.

OK. Well, I will grant you "C" is a plausible argument, that vote-by-mail etc. differentially benefited Democrats by design. I don't buy it, because Republicans chose not to avail themselves of early voting, and no doubt some Republicans who fully intended to vote on Election Day got sidetracked and never made it. So that's on them and on what their leadership told them to do.

[wnyguy]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

OK. Well, I will grant you "C" is a plausible argument, that vote-by-mail etc. differentially benefited Democrats by design. I don't buy it, because Republicans chose not to avail themselves of early voting, and no doubt some Republicans who fully intended to vote on Election Day got sidetracked and never made it. So that's on them and on what their leadership told them to do.

If that was the only thing that happened I would agree with you all the way.

[The Frankish Reich]

i'll also note that Nixon/Watergate comes closest to what the Republicans are trying to get at with Hunter Biden. Nixon was informed about Watergate by at least June 20, 1972 - 4.5 months before the election. That was the day that resulted in the famous 18 minute gap in his recorded conversation with Haldeman. But of course he and his campaign hushed it up until long after the election was over. So it is a "B" type of election interference. 

But not even then did anyone say Nixon "stole" the election because of that. It was "Nixon should be kicked out of office because of his role in covering up what happened." People still voted for him in overwhelming numbers. This "but what if they had known [x]" thing just becomes way too attenuated to support the use of the word "steal" or "rigged."

 

This is why I do think the Hunter investigation is far from over, and that it should continue until some key questions (what did Joe know and when did he know it?) are resolved.

Edited July 26, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Because you are generally a reasonable person, here's my taxonomy of election claims:

 

A. The Strong Actual Fraud claims. These are the Trump claims.

- A.1. Someone hacked/manipulated election machines/software to make them spit out invalid/fraudulent results.

- A.2. Someone stuffed the ballot boxes with "votes" from nonexistent (dead, moved away) or invalid (multiple ballots, same person) voters.

 

B. The Weak Improper Influence claims. (Someone or some entity "Improperly Tried to Influence How People Voted"). These are the Hillary 2016 Russian influence claims.

- B.1. Foreign actors, perhaps with assistance (collusion) of American actors. Russian state-sponsored persons/entities improperly (and/or illegally) engaged in online propaganda either to suppress Democratic votes, drum up Republican votes, or to discourage people from voting entirely.

- B.2. Domestic actors, perhaps with the assistance of U.S. government actors, sought to suppress something or to emphasize something with the intent (or result) of causing people to change whether and how they voted. This is the Hunter's Laptop theory. It is also the Comey Overreaction/More Hillary Emails theory.

 

[EDIT: adding another category]

 

C. The Voter Suppression/Undue Voter Encouragement Claims. These are the Stacy Abrams-type claims, that a state government run by the opposing party took steps to make it unduly difficult to cast a ballot in a way that differentially impacted one party. Polling stations shut down/consolidated into more distant stations in minority/Democratic areas, or polling hours shortened/Sunday voting eliminated, etc. The reverse side of this coin: claims that voting was made too easy in a way that benefits the opposing party or minority groups, like allowing for Sunday voting and transporting groups en masse from church to the ballot box.

 

They are very different kinds of claims. What I'm saying is that Trump's A.1 and A.2 claims have basically zero evidentiary support. And so his supporters (not so much him yet; he's slow to catch on) have begun moving to the weaker B.2 claim. That doesn't mean that there is necessarily nothing there; just that it is more akin to the Hillary B.1 claims than it is to the earlier Trump A.1 and A.2 claims.

 

"Election interference" is a catch-all dealing with all these "engaged in shenanigans to change whether and how actual voters voted." That is quite different from "counted phantom votes" or "changed properly cast votes from one candidate to another."

 

It makes some sense to speak of an election as "stolen" if there is:

1. Solid proof of A.1 and/or A.2 happening, in

2. Sufficient numbers as to plausibly change the result of the election as a whole.

 

Attorney General Barr investigated 2020, and didn't say there was no way A.2 (people ineligible to vote who voted) happening, but he did say there was no evidence that this was in numbers sufficient to change the result.

 

It does not make sense to speak of an election as "stolen" if we are talking about improper influence, since that means that people voted one way rather (or voted when they otherwise wouldn't have, or vice versa) than another based on what they heard or read. That simply doesn't agree with what we typically mean by "stolen" or "rigged." Those terms are properly reserved for the "A" category strong claims, with proof.

Frank, I'm exceptionally reasonable and smart enough to get out my own way. 

 

I actually like the religion analogy.  True believers believe, and for about 3 years, a substantial number of the 80,000,000 faithful believed the preachers and the message that we had Russians in the WH.   It was a masterful strategy...use the government to bring the heat, partner with the media to spread perpetual stories that never quite come true, quote anonymous sources that never materialize.   By the time the reckoning came, the dems switched tactics to talk about obstruction, and a substantial majority of the 80,000,000 faithful just adjusted their beliefs to align with the message point. 

 

It worked well, and here we are with you trying to reimagine the "Trump was not legitimately elected", "Trump stole the election" and "Trump = treason" into something....less.  

 

I would absolutely acknowledge that Trump's version of the 'stolen election' is vastly different than that of the dems.  The dems were much more subtle, certainly knew the workings of the federal government and what their 80,000,000 would buy, but the fact remains that the 80,000,000 had no issues whatsoever believing that there vote was stolen, that Trump was not legitimately elected and whatever.  Truth and decency only became an issue when faced with the same game they supported. 

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

substantial number of the 80,000,000 faithful believed the preachers and the message that we had Russians in the WH.   

Why did the russians choose trump's candidacy to support by disinformation and propaganda?  Mueller concluded this clearly occurred.

[snafu]

37 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

i'll also note that Nixon/Watergate comes closest to what the Republicans are trying to get at with Hunter Biden. Nixon was informed about Watergate by at least June 20, 1972 - 4.5 months before the election. That was the day that resulted in the famous 18 minute gap in his recorded conversation with Haldeman. But of course he and his campaign hushed it up until long after the election was over. So it is a "B" type of election interference. 

But not even then did anyone say Nixon "stole" the election because of that. It was "Nixon should be kicked out of office because of his role in covering up what happened." People still voted for him in overwhelming numbers. This "but what if they had known [x]" thing just becomes way too attenuated to support the use of the word "steal" or "rigged."

 

This is why I do think the Hunter investigation is far from over, and that it should continue until some key questions (what did Joe know and when did he know it?) are resolved.

 

 

I think what gets people upset is that in 2016 there was a push to get the Russiagate investigations into the news whereas in 2020 there was a push to keep the laptop and any investigation of it out of the news.  Trump didn't steal the 2016 election and he overcame accusations of being a Russian stooge.  Biden didn't steal the 2020 election but he probably benefitted from other people suppressing some news that could have hurt his chances.

 

I agree that the Hunter thing is far from over, and it could easily affect the 2024 election.  I doubt Biden will run because of this, or because of his health.  Or they'll use his health as the excuse while the Hunter thing is the real reason.

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

Trump didn't steal the 2016 election and he overcame accusations of being a Russian stooge.

just because it wasn't proven by the investigation doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Mueller shoved the ball back to congress who promptly dropped it .  Mueller also said what I posted above

[snafu]

6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Why did the russians choose trump's candidacy to support by disinformation and propaganda?  Mueller concluded this clearly occurred.

 

Why did the Clinton campaign use Russians and a Brit to use disinformation and propaganda? Durham concluded this clearly occurred.

Both sides clearly pay dirty games.

 

3 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

just because it wasn't proven by the investigation doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Mueller shoved the ball back to congress who promptly dropped it .  Mueller also said what I posted above

 

I said he overcame accusations of being a a Russian stooge.  I didn't say he isn't or wasn't a Russian stooge.  It really does appear that he wasn't a Russian stooge.  My point, however, is that Biden never was forced to overcome accusations that he was taking money on the side while VP, and that's what gets people upset.

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by snafu

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Why did the russians choose trump's candidacy to support by disinformation and propaganda?  Mueller concluded this clearly occurred.

@The Frankish Reich  Witness ye, one of the faithful.  

 

Hawk:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-hasnt-seen-or-been-briefed-on-mueller-investigation-report

 

"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election," Barr wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees on Sunday afternoon.

That was despite "multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign," he wrote.

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

@The Frankish Reich  Witness ye, one of the faithful.  

 

Hawk:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-hasnt-seen-or-been-briefed-on-mueller-investigation-report

 

"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election," Barr wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees on Sunday afternoon.

That was despite "multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign," he wrote.

 

 

 

 

In other words (and note that the quote here is to Barr's somewhat slippery synopsis of the report): Russian-affiliated individuals (including some we now know were Russian state agents) DID make multiple offers to the Trump campaign.

So: yes. Russians, and in turn Russia, did try to interfere to help Trump win the election. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

In other words (and note that the quote here is to Barr's somewhat slippery synopsis of the report): Russian-affiliated individuals (including some we now know were Russian state agents) DID make multiple offers to the Trump campaign.

So: yes. Russians, and in turn Russia, did try to interfere to help Trump win the election. 

 

On cue, and on brand-- of all the people involved in that absurd theater, "Barr" is on a "slippery slope"---when he says what we both agree is true:

• Russia, the red bear, the KGB etc...attempted to influence the election;
• After an exhaustive, multi-year, multi-faceted investigation by seasoned, well-trained, well-experienced and arguably fervently anti-Trump prosecutors revealed:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election," Barr wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees on Sunday afternoon.

That was despite "multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign," he wrote.

 

In other words, Trump did not conspire nor coordinate elections interference, ever, and 4 years of innuendo, lies and coordination with the media was designed only to stir the base, rile up the naive and divide the country.  

 

AG Barr was the hero of the tale, Frank.  You should listen to him. 

 

Meanwhile, Russia gets pretty invadey when democrats are in office, and lots of money floats around to their well-placed friends....

[Westside]

4 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Yes, he was. Have I ever said otherwise?

 

Do you also believe that Trump had nothing to do with Russian interference? 

[Precision]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

Why did the Clinton campaign use Russians and a Brit to use disinformation and propaganda? Durham concluded this clearly occurred.

Both sides clearly pay dirty games.

 

 

I said he overcame accusations of being a a Russian stooge.  I didn't say he isn't or wasn't a Russian stooge.  It really does appear that he wasn't a Russian stooge.  My point, however, is that Biden never was forced to overcome accusations that he was taking money on the side while VP, and that's what gets people upset.

 

 

 

This is the real problem with trying to link Trump to any Russian collusion.  The indisputable fact that the Clinton campaign manufactured evidence through Steele has poisoned the "Russian Collusion" well.  Once this was disclosed to the American people, any further investigations of the matter were viewed skeptically.  In retrospect, the Clinton campaign's interference may be what ultimately killed any potentially pertinent investigation.   

[Westside]

2 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

just because it wasn't proven by the investigation doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Mueller shoved the ball back to congress who promptly dropped it .  Mueller also said what I posted above

I’m going to use John from outer space tactics. There is absolutely zero proof Trump had asked russia for help in the election.

1 minute ago, Precision said:

This is the real problem with trying to link Trump to any Russian collusion.  The indisputable fact that the Clinton campaign manufactured evidence through Steele has poisoned the "Russian Collusion" well.  Once this was disclosed to the American people, any further investigations of the matter were viewed skeptically.  In retrospect, the Clinton campaign's interference may be what ultimately killed any potentially pertinent investigation.   

In other words, just because the left lied and set up the bogus Trump/russia interference doesn’t mean there wasn’t Russian interference even though we have zero proof of any interference. 
Who’s in a cult?

[Precision]

10 minutes ago, Westside said:

I’m going to use John from outer space tactics. There is absolutely zero proof Trump had asked russia for help in the election.

In other words, just because the left lied and set up the bogus Trump/russia interference doesn’t mean there wasn’t Russian interference even though we have zero proof of any interference. 
Who’s in a cult?

There was no proof but even if there were it would not have mattered, that was my point that you clearly did not grasp.  The American people had enough of the entire affair once they had learned of the interference from the Clinton campaign.

 

I'll politely say that I frequently contribute to GOP and occasionally Dem candidates as well as attend events.  You might want to file your cult comment somewhere else champ.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Precision said:

This is the real problem with trying to link Trump to any Russian collusion.  The indisputable fact that the Clinton campaign manufactured evidence through Steele has poisoned the "Russian Collusion" well.  Once this was disclosed to the American people, any further investigations of the matter were viewed skeptically.  In retrospect, the Clinton campaign's interference may be what ultimately killed any potentially pertinent investigation.   

And it was known very, very early on by CIA, Obama and Biden that the Clinton campaigned with a hostile foreign national to disrupt our election.   Sadly, that fact was kept from the American people because it went against the disinformation campaign of Trump conspiring with Russia. 
 

Still, the calculus by dem leadership seemed to be their base really didn’t care about election denialism and claims of treason, and they were correct.