OT: Epstein: 'Conspiracy theorists' proved right again

[Rick C]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 7:56:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 6:18:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 2:53:43 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/08/12 11:45 a.m., Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:434ae82e-585b-4d18-
8d92-9fda17149e3d@googlegroups.com:

It's too bad the Democrats picked an even more defective candidate,
so bad that she lost against the orange clown.

No. She didn't. I took the corrupted Electoral college to put the
lard assed criminal in office.

There you go again. There is nothing corrupted about the electoral college,
it worked just like it's worked for two centuries. You just don't like
the result. The Democrats lost because they picked an unfit throwback
to the past. They are in the process of making an even bigger mistake
this time with a bunch of crazy libs and old Joe, who's losing his marbles.
Maybe you can get with them, give them some good, calm, advice?


If the Electoral College is so great why has no other democracy copied it?

https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-countries-besides-us-have-electoral-colleges.htm

Just asking...

John

The claim was that the Electoral College was "corrupt". It's not.
That other democracies haven't copied it is irrelevant. One key
factor is that the US is formed around states across a diverse country
spanning 3000 miles. Clearly we're no Sweden.

Canada, Australia and Germany are all federations. None of them copied it, though they quite deliberately copied other features.

And the founders wanted
state's rights to be represented, so they came up with a system to do
that.

Not exactly. They wanted to bribe the smaller states to come on board. The Senate structure reflects that, and that is a feature that has been copied. The elctoral college was the same kind of bribe, but - becuase there's only one president - doesn't work nearly as well.

Just as bad is the way an electoral tie is broken. The House selects the President based on the votes of the state delegations, not the members of the house. I don't know what happens if they are tied then. Does the Vice President break the tie?

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 6:43:51 AM UTC+10, bitrex wrote:

On 8/12/19 9:32 AM, Whoey Louie wrote:

economic/populist arguments for the administration fall flat. The
average Republican is doing just fine. They like him because he is a
fascist and a racist, not because he's a populist capable of some
economic miracle Obama couldn't accomplish. On the numbers that matter
the economy under Obama was meh and it continues to be meh.

I think the economy, which has improved under Trump, and them giving him
far more credit for that due to false perceptions, is playing a large part
in his continued support. But maybe not. I see his support among farmers
is still strong and he's destroyed their businesses and put them on corp
welfare. Go figure.


Americans are not intrinsically opposed to socialism by any means.
National socialism is a kind of socialism.

Adolf Hitler thought that it was. Nobody much else has seen the connection.

The international socialists threw out Karl Marx and the proto-communists in 1871 for being un-democratic and advocating a one-party state. Hitler was definitely a one-party state man, even if he did choose to call his party national socialists.

Lots of Americans are opposed to trade unions, which is practical socialism.

The opposition is concentrated amongst wealthy American (as it is in other countries) but America does give the wealthy more political clout than they can wield in other advanced industrial countries.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 6:18:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 2:53:43 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/08/12 11:45 a.m., Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:434ae82e-585b-4d18-
8d92-9fda17149e3d@googlegroups.com:

It's too bad the Democrats picked an even more defective candidate,
so bad that she lost against the orange clown.

No. She didn't. I took the corrupted Electoral college to put the
lard assed criminal in office.

There you go again. There is nothing corrupted about the electoral college,
it worked just like it's worked for two centuries. You just don't like
the result. The Democrats lost because they picked an unfit throwback
to the past. They are in the process of making an even bigger mistake
this time with a bunch of crazy libs and old Joe, who's losing his marbles.
Maybe you can get with them, give them some good, calm, advice?


If the Electoral College is so great why has no other democracy copied it?

https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-countries-besides-us-have-electoral-colleges.htm

Just asking...

John

The claim was that the Electoral College was "corrupt". It's not.
That other democracies haven't copied it is irrelevant. One key
factor is that the US is formed around states across a diverse country
spanning 3000 miles. Clearly we're no Sweden.

Canada, Australia and Germany are all federations. None of them copied it, though they quite deliberately copied other features.

And the founders wanted
state's rights to be represented, so they came up with a system to do
that.

Not exactly. They wanted to bribe the smaller states to come on board. The Senate structure reflects that, and that is a feature that has been copied. The elctoral college was the same kind of bribe, but - becuase there's only one president - doesn't work nearly as well.

It's all been well and good until recently, when some crybabies
refuse to accept the results.

Minority presidents have tended to be bad news. Trump's popular vote margin was proportionally the smallest ever for an eventual winner, and, and he's even worse than Dubbya.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 8:22:33 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

Just as bad is the way an electoral tie is broken. The House selects the President based on the votes of the state delegations, not the members of the house. I don't know what happens if they are tied then. Does the Vice President break the tie?

Sorry, I'm sure the pedants will complain that I should have said if no Presidential candidate has a majority. lol

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 2:45:31 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:434ae82e-585b-4d18-
8d92-9fda17149e3d@googlegroups.com:

It's too bad the Democrats picked an even more defective candidate,
so bad that she lost against the orange clown.

No. She didn't. I took the corrupted Electoral college to put the
lard assed criminal in office.

There you go again. There is nothing corrupted about the electoral college,
it worked just like it's worked for two centuries. You just don't like
the result.

Yes, I have never liked the idea that a handful of "key" states determine the Presidential election. It should be 1 man/woman, 1 vote like we do in all our other elections.

We are working to fix this. There is an effort called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in which states commit to assigning all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Once enough states have signed to make it effective in deciding the Presidential election it will take effect.

It's not about Republican vs. Democrat or liberal vs. conservative. It's about letting the people choose our President.

--

Rick C.

It's very much about liberals, because they want the high population blue states to determine the outcome and screw all the fly-over country. They win. A bunch of sore losers, who want to change the rules. Between favoring open borders and putting illegal aliens over Americans,proposing free health care for illegal aliens, and this, if you keep it up, we are headed for civil war.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 12:03:37 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 2:45:31 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:434ae82e-585b-4d18-
8d92-9fda17149e3d@googlegroups.com:

It's too bad the Democrats picked an even more defective candidate,
so bad that she lost against the orange clown.

No. She didn't. I took the corrupted Electoral college to put the
lard assed criminal in office.

There you go again. There is nothing corrupted about the electoral college,
it worked just like it's worked for two centuries. You just don't like
the result.

Yes, I have never liked the idea that a handful of "key" states determine the Presidential election. It should be 1 man/woman, 1 vote like we do in all our other elections.

We are working to fix this. There is an effort called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in which states commit to assigning all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Once enough states have signed to make it effective in deciding the Presidential election it will take effect.

It's not about Republican vs. Democrat or liberal vs. conservative. It's about letting the people choose our President.

--

Rick C.


It's very much about liberals, because they want the high population blue states to determine the outcome and screw all the fly-over country. They win. A bunch of sore losers, who want to change the rules. Between favoring open borders and putting illegal aliens over Americans,proposing free health care for illegal aliens, and this, if you keep it up, we are headed for civil war.

You see, that's the problem. You want to elect a President by states choosing because that suits your political goals. I want a popular vote because that is right. It has nothing to do with loosing. If I were a Republican I would still support an end to selecting a President by anything other than a choice by a majority. I don't give a damn about the politics. I want to do what is right.

There are numerous reasons for the origin of the electoral college. None of them are still valid.

Civil war? Lol. You are nearly alone in that idea. There are a few crackpots in this group who will support you, but that's about it. People revolt when they are stressed and suffering. Only a small minority in this country are really stressed or suffering. That's why groups like the KKK and the various civilian militias are small and ineffective. People with these ideas are few and far between.

The fact that you even talk about civil war shows you are not far from cracked.

I will acknowledge the Democrats come up with some wild candidates for President. I haven't seen anyone I would want in office if there are other real choices. But the Republicans aren't much better. Jeeze, we are talking about the party of Ben Carson for cripes sake!

The only reason the Senate didn't go Democratic in the last election is because very few Republican seats were up for election. In 2020 it will be a different story. We will see if the entire tide swings the other way.

It's not great to swing wildly back and forth every 4 years. But you have to admit carrot top hasn't been doing very well as President. I wasn't enthusiastic about Bush, but at least he wasn't totally off the rails.

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
news:20190812195007.yo487S596Z90@sewer.dizum.com:

americas a republic not a democracy

You're an idiot, not an intelligent adult.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3f3b0c64-8202-4b1c-87af-d0dc3d6d8a00@googlegroups.com:

There you go again. There is nothing corrupted about the
electoral college, it worked just like it's worked for two
centuries.

And it has been proven to be corrupted for more than the last half
century. Lots of folks in Washington want it removed from the process.
Wake up.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:ac359a8b-a272-43f2-bd1d-e7c5626ff4e8@googlegroups.com:

More silliness. It has absolutely nothing to do with any hardware
choices. She obviously didn't choose the hardware.

Oh, but it does. You see, this whole thing is all about the fact
that she liked Blackberry phones and did not want to give them up.
Her entire menagerie after that was so she could continue using her
favorite phone.

It had everything to do with hardware choices.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:ac359a8b-a272-43f2-bd1d-e7c5626ff4e8@googlegroups.com:

So is a Sec of State or any other govt official being extremely
careless with classified information. Those were Comey's words,
not mine. And yet he gave her a pass, showing the sad state of
unequal justice in America.

You obviously have zero grasp of what the term 'criminality' means.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:43983b44-9c8c-44f6-8c38-0f1d9928b2ef@googlegroups.com:

And the founders wanted
state's rights to be represented, so they came up with a system to
do that. It's all been well and good until recently, when some
crybabies refuse to accept the results.

No. Things have changed. The populations have changed and the
population densities. Several factors flag the Electoral college as
not being required any longer.

 

[Nomen Nescio]

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
news:20190812195007.yo487S596Z90@sewer.dizum.com:


americas a republic not a democracy


You're an idiot, not an intelligent adult.

takes one to know one

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 2:03:37 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 2:45:31 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:434ae82e-585b-4d18-
8d92-9fda17149e3d@googlegroups.com:

It's too bad the Democrats picked an even more defective candidate,
so bad that she lost against the orange clown.

No. She didn't. I took the corrupted Electoral college to put the
lard assed criminal in office.

There you go again. There is nothing corrupted about the electoral college,
it worked just like it's worked for two centuries. You just don't like
the result.

Yes, I have never liked the idea that a handful of "key" states determine the Presidential election. It should be 1 man/woman, 1 vote like we do in all our other elections.

We are working to fix this. There is an effort called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in which states commit to assigning all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Once enough states have signed to make it effective in deciding the Presidential election it will take effect.

It's not about Republican vs. Democrat or liberal vs. conservative. It's about letting the people choose our President.

It's very much about liberals, because they want the high population blue states to determine the outcome and screw all the fly-over country. They win.

Actually the senate was designed to deal with that, and it does it well enough that lots of places have copied that idea. The electoral college was a similar kind of bribe to the smaller states, but since you only elect one president at a time, it doesn't work the same way, doesn't do anything useful, and hasn't been copied.

Minority presidents haven't been impressive. George W. Bush was bad, but Trump is worse. Face it - it was silly idea and you should dump it.

> A bunch of sore losers, who want to change the rules. Between favoring open borders and putting illegal aliens over Americans,proposing free health care for illegal aliens, and this, if you keep it up, we are headed for civil war.

Trader4 hasn't noticed that the USA has a grossly unequal income distribution - much worse than any other advanced industrial country.

That's a much more likely basis for a civil war than anxieties about immigration. When the top 1% of the income distribution collects 20% of the national income

https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/

everybody else can work out that they'll be 20% better off if they expropriate the greedy rich.

When that top 1% is the only to see a rising income, and everybody sees their situation staying much the same or getting worse, the motivation is to do it sooner rather than later.

The proper solution would be tax the rich much more heavily and invest the money in educating and the training the less well off (and giving them better health care) so that they became more productive but the US way is to off-shore the productive jobs to place where labour is cheaper and somebody else pays to educate and train the workers and keep them healthy.

Margaret Thatcher famously complained that UK workers were less productive in terms of value output per head than Germans.

When economists looked into it they noticed that if you figured in the capital investment per worker, UK workers produced more per head per unit of capital investment than the German counterparts - UK manufacturers didn't invest as much overall, and concentrated their investment in the most profitable sectors.

This - strangely - didn't encourage UK manufacturers to invest more. Germany now exports almost as much as the US (with a quarter of the population) and the UK is way behind.

The US is making a slightly different set of mistakes and going to hell in a slightly different handbasket, but it's problems aren't people immigrating into the country, but jobs and capital migrating out if it. Civil war won't help that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 3:29:09 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:ac359a8b-a272-43f2-bd1d-e7c5626ff4e8@googlegroups.com:

So is a Sec of State or any other govt official being extremely
careless with classified information. Those were Comey's words,
not mine. And yet he gave her a pass, showing the sad state of
unequal justice in America.


You obviously have zero grasp of what the term 'criminality' means.

You have no grasp that the word "criminality" does not appear in the
statute under which Hillary should have been charged. All it requires
is negligence in handling classified material. Comey, not me, said that
Hillary was "extremely careless" in handling classified information.
Extremely careless is negligent.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 3:33:28 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:ac359a8b-a272-43f2-bd1d-e7c5626ff4e8@googlegroups.com:

More silliness. It has absolutely nothing to do with any hardware
choices. She obviously didn't choose the hardware.

Oh, but it does. You see, this whole thing is all about the fact
that she liked Blackberry phones and did not want to give them up.
Her entire menagerie after that was so she could continue using her
favorite phone.

It had everything to do with hardware choices.

Totally irrelevant, and totally stupid, of course. Hillary only came up
with that lie, that she needed her own email server to have just one
device. We have pictures of her using several devices. And it does not
matter. The US statutes don't say that you can disregard the law for
personal convenience. This is really, really stupid, even for you.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 2:03:37 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 2:45:31 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:434ae82e-585b-4d18-
8d92-9fda17149e3d@googlegroups.com:

It's too bad the Democrats picked an even more defective candidate,
so bad that she lost against the orange clown.

No. She didn't. It took the corrupted Electoral college to put the
lard assed criminal in office.

There you go again. There is nothing corrupted about the electoral college, it worked just like it's worked for two centuries. You just don't like the result.

Yes, I have never liked the idea that a handful of "key" states determine the Presidential election. It should be 1 man/woman, 1 vote like we do in all our other elections.

We are working to fix this. There is an effort called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in which states commit to assigning all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Once enough states have signed to make it effective in deciding the Presidential election it will take effect.

It's not about Republican vs. Democrat or liberal vs. conservative. It's about letting the people choose our President.

It's very much about liberals, because they want the high population blue states to determine the outcome and screw all the fly-over country. They win.

Actually the senate was designed to deal with that, and it does it well enough that lots of places have copied that idea. The electoral college was a similar kind of bribe to the smaller states, but since you only elect one president at a time, it doesn't work the same way, doesn't do anything useful, and hasn't been copied.

Minority presidents haven't been impressive. George W. Bush was bad, but Trump is worse. Face it - it was silly idea and you should dump it.

> A bunch of sore losers, who want to change the rules. Between favoring open borders and putting illegal aliens over Americans,proposing free health care for illegal aliens, and this, if you keep it up, we are headed for civil war.

Trader4 hasn't noticed that the USA has a grossly unequal income distribution - much worse than any other advanced industrial country.

That's a much more likely basis for a civil war than anxieties about immigration. When the top 1% of the income distribution collects 20% of the national income

https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/

everybody else can work out that they'll be 20% better off if they expropriate the greedy rich.

When that top 1% is the only segment to see rising incomes, and everybody else sees their situation staying much the same or getting worse, the motivation is to do it sooner rather than later.

The proper solution would be tax the rich much more heavily and invest the money in educating and the training the less well off (and giving them better health care) so that they became more productive but the US way is to off-shore the productive jobs to place where labour is cheaper and somebody else pays to educate and train the workers and keep them healthy.

Margaret Thatcher famously complained that UK workers were less productive in terms of value output per head than Germans.

When economists looked into it they noticed that if you figured in the capital investment per worker, UK workers produced more per head per unit of capital investment than the German counterparts - UK manufacturers didn't invest as much overall, and concentrated their investment in the most profitable sectors.

This - strangely - didn't encourage UK manufacturers to invest more. Germany now exports almost as much as the US (with a quarter of the population) and the UK is way behind.

The US is making a slightly different set of mistakes and going to hell in a slightly different handbasket, but it's problems aren't people immigrating into the country, but jobs and capital migrating out if it. Civil war won't help that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 8:54:47 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 1:23:33 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 10:52:25 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 12:28:42 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 9:49:32 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:cdf88e02-4c07-4145-
aa53-c7ba60953a08@googlegroups.com:

That is a hell of a lot different than a sex
trafficker of a person in office colluding with a foreign (enemy)
entity to affect ANYTHING in our nation.

Hillary colluded with the Russians? Wow!



Nice try, putz boy. I made no reference to her. I referred to
Epstein and Trump, as if your wee wittle bwain is having processing
issues.

Epstein colluded with the Russians? Tell us more? Trump colluded?
After $35 mil and two years, Mueller concluded that there was no evidence
that Trump, anyone in the Trump campaign or any American colluded with
Russia.

A couple of members of the Trump election team have gone to prison for acting for Russian interests within notifying the people they should have done about what they were doing.

Sure, from years ago, before they had anything to do with Trump, Manafort
and Gates worked for pro-Soviet schmucks in Ukraine. Had nothing to do
with any Russian meddling in the election, which was the central allegation,
the whole purpose of the $35 mil, two year investigation. So, they found
those two failed to register as foreign agents. Not the first to do so
and typically all that happens is you file.

That's not the way the New Yorker put it.

Well there you have it! The oracle of all lib truth, the NY Yorker puts
it another way, so it must be so. Stupid lib.

Mueller concluded that the Trump team and the Russians hadn't colluded to influence the election - the Trump team were such a bunch of loose cannons that nobody even vaguely sane would include them in any conspiracy.

Hysterical that you say that now, when for two years all the lefties have
been so sure that Trump and his campaign did collude.

What makes you think that?

Because the libs have been yelling about it for the last two years?
Hello? Stupid lib.




The evidence that the Russians helped Trump has always been pretty clear, but collusion is harder to prove, and this particular leftist (from your point of view) has always thought that Trump was too erratic to be somebody anybody would risk collude=ing with .

The Russians did influence the election, but strictly in their own interests, and the Trump team were avid to pick up and dirt that the Russians might might have leaked to them.

That part you have mostly right, except the Russians were not leaking to
Trump's campaign they were just leaking to the world.

There are specific e-mails within the Trump team that suggested that they thought otherwise.

Mueller didn't conclude that the Trump team hadn't done anything criminal, but did rule out explicit collusion - being dumb enough to be played by the Russians isn't collusion.

He did rule out anything criminal with regard to the election or election
meddling. That was his charter. It's just that the stupid, bitter Democrats
still won't accept it.

He did rule out collusion. The hush money paid to Stormy Daniels was "election meddling" and should have been reported as an election expense.

Oh, BS, that's pure nonsense. You know what the best defense to that BS is?
I'd say to the jury, OK, the prosecution says the Trump campaign was
supposed to treat this as a campaign expenditure, not personal. Suppose
the Trump campaign paid it, reported it as a campaign expense. Then we;d
be here in court with the Trump campaign charged with using campaign donations
for PERSONAL expenses. And then, they probably would have a case.
Stupid lib.



That has got a lot of publicity for obvious reasons. There seem to have been other improprieties going on.

The Democrats don't have to be either stupid or bitter to have hopes of nailing the crook, but they may have to wait until he loses the next election.

Yeah, dream on. And expect the same if a Democrat is elected in return.
Stupid lib.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 11:22:40 PM UTC+10, Nomen Nescio wrote:

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
news:20190812195007.yo487S596Z90@sewer.dizum.com:


americas a republic not a democracy

You're an idiot, not an intelligent adult.

takes one to know one.

So are you an idiot or an intelligent adult? An intelligent adult would presumably have noticed the ambiguity in your response, and chosen an unambiguous form of words ...

The idiots we have around here don't seem to be able to recognise the occasional intelligent adults who post here, while most of the intelligent adults don't bother telling the idiots that they are idiots, because that is a waste of time - they are too stupid to realise quite how stupid they are (as in the Dunning Kruger Effect). Adults of merely average intelligence get told that they've got stuff wrong from time to time, which can be worth doing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 8:03:41 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:bfd1907e-825e-4542-984b-158e79450df5@googlegroups.com:

The fact is her acts were mild by any measure. Comey even said
so.

That's wrong too. Comey actually said that what Hillary did was
"extremely careless".

Yep, and no breeches makes them pretty mild.

There were no breeches with the Navy submariner, he went to prison.

All the law requires for a felony
conviction is that one be negligent.

Donald J. Trump should be down at GITMO right now then.

Attempt at diversion detected! Attempt at diversion deflected.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 8:08:00 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:bfd1907e-825e-4542-984b-158e79450df5@googlegroups.com:

Oh no, I know the Clintons had a handle on it. That's why she
didn't get charged, while the poor schmuck submariner who took a
selfie did.


He broke the rules blatantly on a deck he was not even supposed to
have his phone in his possession on. It is like walking around with
a camera in a secured compartment. How quaint.

And Hillary chose to disregard US law, disregard the US laws on record
preservation and create her own email server in her HOUSE! hillary
did that and not only wasn't she charged, she claimed that she was pefectly
fit to be president.