Latest resources

NXS20 3D Studio Max Scene MattyO
NXS20 3D Studio Max Scene for Max8 and above.
5.00 star(s) 1 ratings
Downloads
60
Updated
NXS20 Car Viewer Files MattyO
5.00 star(s) 2 ratings
Downloads
175
Updated
NXS20 Templates 2048 x 2048 MattyO
2048 x 2048 Templates in PSD format.
5.00 star(s) 2 ratings
Downloads
228
Updated
32 Corey LaJoie 2020 Schluter Systems Ford Mustang JNieder51188
5.00 star(s) 1 ratings
Downloads
69
Updated
2020 NXS17 Xfinity batch 3 canadienhits
24 Xfinity cars from the 2020 season.
0.00 star(s) 0 ratings
Downloads
119
Updated

Mueller Investigation

RacerXero84

Obnoxious old fart
SRD Member
Messages
3,863
Reaction score
4,984
Sure, I'll bite.

You're overgeneralizing when you're stating that nations exert influence over other nations. Of course they do! But actively meddling in the election by spreading propaganda is not the same as Barack Obama praising a foreign leader. That Macron link also says nothing U.S. organizations donating to him. Russian organizations unambiguously meddled in the U.S election. This is not an "all the time" thing. I looked up foreign electoral intervention, and found significant information on the Italian general election in 1948, and the U.S. interfering in Chile in the 1970's. There wasn't too much else.

That's besides the point - why does the newness of a problem write off the problem in your eyes?
Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Without going full on tinfoil hat, do you honestly think it is beyond government bodies to low-key try to effect elections and candidates? I don't put it past them at all. Not for a second.
So, in my eyes, the problem is not 'new'. It's just 'new' in the sense that people are evidently being upset about it.

I'm really doing my best to fact-check everything I've typed and made sure the sources I've shared are credible, and I don't really appreciate this response. I like you, I think you're a good guy, but please don't talk down to me, especially when most of your claims are just assertions. We can do this politely.
While I am very much 'if the shoe fits, wear it' kind of guy, that wasn't a direct attack on you at all. Much is lost in text translation over verbal in person. Said that for years now.
That was more pointing at how society has become divided into segments of people who think the world works 'by the book', and those who understand that literally nothing works 'by the book'. Covert ops and psyops are a thing, so while yes, I do agree that foreign entities meddling in elections and whatnot is not good on a moral level, I don't believe for an instant that it isn't something that governments attempt to do all the time, whether it becomes public or not.

However, in this particular case (Russia and the 2016 election), I think it's being heavily overstated. I do not think (this is assuming they had any tangible effect) that the outcome of 2016 would have been any different without Russia, China, etc.
 

JeffJordan

My name is no longer Jeff Jordan
SRD Member
Messages
10,683
Reaction score
4,829
Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Without going full on tinfoil hat, do you honestly think it is beyond government bodies to low-key try to effect elections and candidates? I don't put it past them at all. Not for a second.
So, in my eyes, the problem is not 'new'. It's just 'new' in the sense that people are evidently being upset about it.
I don't think it's beyond government bodies, but I also stick with what I find is generally accepted, and I can't find a whole lot about foreign electoral interference aside from the cases I linked.

While I am very much 'if the shoe fits, wear it' kind of guy, that wasn't a direct attack on you at all. Much is lost in text translation over verbal in person. Said that for years now.
That was more pointing at how society has become divided into segments of people who think the world works 'by the book', and those who understand that literally nothing works 'by the book'. Covert ops and psyops are a thing, so while yes, I do agree that foreign entities meddling in elections and whatnot is not good on a moral level, I don't believe for an instant that it isn't something that governments attempt to do all the time, whether it becomes public or not.

However, in this particular case (Russia and the 2016 election), I think it's being heavily overstated. I do not think (this is assuming they had any tangible effect) that the outcome of 2016 would have been any different without Russia, China, etc.
Okay, I understand how that could have been lost over text. In response to something I said I thought it was a passive-aggressive attack on me but I'm mistaken.

Can I ask how you formed that belief?

I'm not claiming to know how the world works. I'm a graphic designer and animator that works on children's cartoons. I have a degree in Political Science, but I don't believe that covers the full picture. It's a small program; our department head got a lot of press for being one of the few people who correctly predicted a Trump victory in the election. I try hard to stay as informed as I can and I'm not going to believe a claim that has little or no substantial evidence. I've trained myself as hard as I can to avoid personal bias in general.
 

RacerXero84

Obnoxious old fart
SRD Member
Messages
3,863
Reaction score
4,984
I've traveled quite a bit. Been apart of groups with people from all sorts of walks of life, with varying educational levels, political beliefs, etc. More than I care to enumerate.
In meeting these people and working with groups of such, I've found that there is a percentage, about 40 or so, that seem to become quite disgruntled when things don't operate or function by the book, who see things through a sort of 'lens' if you will, that most things are on the up and up, what you see is what you get type of people. When you introduce something that doesn't meet that format, it throws them off in a big way, with varying levels of similar responses.

Conversely, about another 50 percent of the people I've encountered have this understanding that, while some things and operation breakdowns look great on paper, sometimes a little something else, an action or movement that some see as shady, is required to make it work, or to achieve the desired results. Then there's the fraction that understands to a point, but simply doesn't care to know or delve into it.

Here's a perfect example: A unit requires fire extinguishers in order to have their convoy be able to operate. Ordering them through supply takes weeks. So Private A and Specialist B are 'told' (but not officially) to "acquire" the needed items. No questions asked. So those personnel make their way over to another unit, and "acquire" those items in the middle of the night, right out from under the noses of the CQ duty personnel of an adjacent unit. Items are then placed where the unit needs them to be, and the convoy rolls out the next day without an issue, with the operation of the previous night only known to 3-4 people. Everyone else just accepts that things are working as expected, and don't really inquire or care how.

This type of stuff is quite common, both in military and private life.

Apply that on a world stage. World as it's supposed to be vs the world how it actually operates. Personally always found that aspect of life to be immensely intriguing.
 
Last edited:

JeffJordan

My name is no longer Jeff Jordan
SRD Member
Messages
10,683
Reaction score
4,829
I respect you sharing your opinion and a bit of your life experience, so I'll share a bit of mine. I know people from all over the world, all walks of life, varying educational and political beliefs as well. I was brought up by a USSR-born-and-raised government accountant mother in one of the most diverse urban areas in the world. I was born in Russia and recently became a U.S. citizen - not something everybody has experienced, and a very difficult thing to explain to somebody who hasn't experienced it. For example, my views on immigration have been largely formed by the fact that becoming a U.S. citizen was a difficult process and I had no control over where I was born.

I've become more liberal as I've gotten older because of getting to know a variety of people, and my own experiences, as well as documented facts. Obviously, this is not the same for everybody.

But, that world is different from others. Different from yours, different from people close to me. My girlfriend is Taiwanese-born, adopted by Danish-American parents and has been a victim of racially and sexually charged comments for her entire life. I am not going to understand that no matter how hard I try because as a white, not-particularly-attractive male, no comments like that have ever been directed at me. I don't think meshing what a group of people think into an aggregate idea will tell you "how the world works."

Furthermore, the world is not a monolithic concept with uniform attributes all over the planet. Take something basic as what Americans think of heritage - most people can narrow it down to a percentage. I'm 75% Russian, and the other quarter is a smorgasbord of other ethnicities from Soviet states. My Russian mom, and Russian family believe that specifically knowing and touting percentages is the stupidest thing in the world. Ethnicity hardly matters in Europe. Gender and race do matter more - affirmative action is a very real thing in several European countries. But ethnicity doesn't matter at all.

My daily life as a New Yorker is probably far different from yours, and also different from people getting up in places that are further away.
I'm not saying I know how the world works. I don't think you know how the world works and I don't think that's on you - it's just impossible to classify the world working into one concept. Assuming other stuff is going on is not a given and I prefer to stick to the facts. I actually no longer understand your original statement that "there is no collusion because there is no smoking gun [yet]" (a secondary focus of the investigation) because you just said "people work behind the scenes and we don't even know about what they do."

That's why I'm sticking to the facts with this. Life experience and knowing others will not help you, me or anybody else in the largely impersonal field of world politics.
 
Last edited:

MattyO

Kinder Gentler Blowhard
Admin
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
13,214
It's a lot of things - Trump won the election because voter turnout was not as projected, and a higher proportion of uneducated white men in smaller states voted than was expected. A Russian Organization, the Internet Research Agency, published and spread fake news on social media. This could have absolutely motivated more people to vote based on misinformation, most of which was pro-Trump and anti-Clinton. Here's a study from the Ohio State University that concluded fake news could have played a role. Washington Post has an article with some extra links summarizing it.

I don't think the result of the election matters - people have been charged with interference in the 2016 election, and even if Clinton won it would have been a bad thing. Note that this investigation is led by a Republican and was assigned to that role by a Republican after the Director of National Intelligence recommended an investigation.
Well that was one of the best non answers of all time. You my friend have a future in politics. Other than insulting every white man that didn't go to college (that'd be me!). Which by the way I can speak for every one of them when I tell you to fuck off you arrogant pompous asshole. That goes for you too @Darren Ingram and @EarnhardtFan for liking his post.

She dropped the ball. Period. Trump said things that would tank any other campaign in the history of campaigns. And yet, she still couldn't figure out a way to beat him. And you arrogant lefties still haven't figured out why we wouldn't vote for her. Shame on you.

One more thing. If people on the right don't get to use the "I have a black friend or friends so I am not a racist" counter argument that you and Darren quickly jumped all over someone over. Then you guys and gals or the left don't get to use the counter argument that Trump won the election because of the "old racist white man" voter turnout. And before you say "that's not what I said", you don't have to. That's what you meant.That's what MSNBC and CNN meant when they said the same thing.

lol, uneducated white men. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you.
 

MrDude68

Premier Senior Member
SRD Member
Messages
2,235
Reaction score
2,905
Well that was a pretty strong post, but Matt does have a point, JJ. Maybe you didn't mean it, but that phrase comes across exactly like this to all the men of rural America:

"You don't have the degree I have, and you live under a rock in the middle of nowhere. You have no status. You are insensitive to other people's suffering because of your sex and skin color. Your political opinions are therefore dismissed."

Isn't it pretty degrading when you think about it that way?
 

EarnhardtFan

Premier Senior Member
Banned
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
1,731
Other than insulting every white man that didn't go to college (that'd be me!).
*cough* I fit here too *cough*

I REALLY don't understand why I was dragged in here, I thought it seemed like a pretty factual answer so I liked the post. To quote the article:
In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980. For example, in 2012, there was hardly any difference between the two groups: College graduates backed Obama over Romney by 50%-48%, and those without a college degree also supported Obama 51%-47%.
While I do think that using the word "uneducated" was a poor choice, I have also heard it used in instances like this as a general term for people that haven't gone to college. It isn't an attack on anyone here, at least to my knowledge. Just poor phrasing, it seems.

Personally I agree, she dropped the ball, how the hell Trump did what he did and said what he said and still managed to win I'll never know. For me, it seems like a mix of factors, maybe some people liked that he was racist/sexist/etc., I know my dad liked him because he was self-funded (No idea if that's 100% true though), I know many people voted for him simply because he seemed like the lesser of two evils at the time, maybe there was hacking or whatever. There's likely a mix of reasons of how the hell he won. The fact of the matter is that we're stuck with him for another two years whether we like it or not. Those of us who want him out can hope this investigation actually turns something up and those of us that like him can hope it doesn't.
I feel like Hillary has left a sour taste in a lot of Democrats mouths, she isn't very likable and would likely lose another election to Trump. Most have figured that out.
Also, this, BIG TIME
 
Last edited:

Darren Ingram

Premier Senior Member
SRD Member
Messages
2,543
Reaction score
2,012
Well that was one of the best non answers of all time.
The question appears answered to me?
Other than insulting every white man that didn't go to college (that'd be me!)
Please point me to the insult? Bringing up the fact that a certain demographic that leans a certain way politically had increased turnout isn't an insult, it's just a fact? It would be no different than saying that Obama won in '08 due in large part to increased voter turnout in the African American community. It's not an insult, it's a fact.
Which by the way I can speak for every one of them when I tell you to fuck off you arrogant pompous asshole. That goes for you too @Darren Ingram and @EarnhardtFan for liking his post.
I'd say this kind of attack is more of the asshole behavior, but sure.
She dropped the ball. Period. Trump said things that would tank any other campaign in the history of campaigns. And yet, she still couldn't figure out a way to beat him.
Agreed.
And you arrogant lefties still haven't figured out why we wouldn't vote for her. Shame on you.
I feel like Hillary has left a sour taste in a lot of Democrats mouths, she isn't very likable and would likely lose another election to Trump. Most have figured that out.
And talk about asshole behavior.
One more thing. If people on the right don't get to use the "I have a black friend or friends so I am not a racist" counter argument that you and Darren quickly jumped all over someone over. Then you guys and gals or the left don't get to use the counter argument that Trump won the election because of the "old racist white man" voter turnout. And before you say "that's not what I said", you don't have to. That's what you meant.That's what MSNBC and CNN meant when they said the same thing.
So, I fail to see the connection here. Once again, no one said old racist white man. He said uneducated white males. You're the one who brought the racist part into it, not him.
 

Darren Ingram

Premier Senior Member
SRD Member
Messages
2,543
Reaction score
2,012
Well that was a pretty strong post, but Matt does have a point, JJ. Maybe you didn't mean it, but that phrase comes across exactly like this to all the men of rural America:

"You don't have the degree I have, and you live under a rock in the middle of nowhere. You have no status. You are insensitive to other people's suffering because of your sex and skin color. Your political opinions are therefore dismissed."

Isn't it pretty degrading when you think about it that way?
Not everyone on the left thinks like that, or says things like that.

In fact, I'd argue that more crap like that comes more from the right.

You want to talk about degrading? How about saying that certain groups of people shouldn't be allowed to get married, or that certain religions shouldn't be allowed to travel, and so on. That, is pretty degrading.


Also, saying that the left offends those men in rural America, that's a pretty hefty generalization there. I'm a man from rural America, hell, a lot of my relatives have are uneducated males who worked in agriculture or in factories, etc. I don't dismiss their, or anyone's political opinion. @MattyO calling me an arrogant, pompous asshole is quite frankly an attack on my character that I don't appreciate.
 

MattyO

Kinder Gentler Blowhard
Admin
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
13,214
Well that was a pretty strong post,
lol, it was meant to be.

@Darren Ingram you can dance around what JeffJordan believes by him citing that article, and you can stick your head in the sand that is not what was meant, and that's fine. I hear it on news stations, I hear it on PRN, I've heard it since Trump won. You lefties are grasping at anything and everything to figure out why Trump won. Citing that article just solidifies my argument, or better yet, my insults.
@EarnhardtFan then why would you like what Jeff said? One of his justifications is dumb people, more specific white dumb people, voted for Trump, and Hillary's team didn't account for that. Clearly only idiots would vote for Trump.

Why would educated, or uneducated people be a part of the discussion at all if it weren't meant to explain why on god's green earth anyone would vote for that awful man Donald Trump?

The question appears answered to me?
No it wasn't. It's a simple question. Did Trump collude with the russians to win the Presidency. Yes or no? Or did Hillary just blow it? Again, it goes back to the dumb white men argument. Surely Hillary's team didn't blow it, they just forgot about the dumb white people who aren't sure who to vote for. If it's not Russia, it's dumb white people is the reason he's in office. What's next?

So when that fails, the left will go after his taxes and maybe that avenue will get him out of office. The left (and what I mean by the left is news agencies such as CNN, MSNBC, politicians etc) is literally stopping at nothing to remove him from office. And coming up with bullshit sources citing why he won isn't helping your cause. It's only going to make people like me vote for him again in 2 years. All the while insulting my intelligence, and those that look like me and are as uneducated as me. So again, I tell you, all of you who believe that can fuck right off. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
You better start listening to what I'm saying or you're going to get another 4 years of Trump. You want him out, put someone up there against him who doesn't insult my intelligence by calling me uneducated, or a deplorable or a racist because I like that fact he wants to tone down immigration and not let people from certain countries into this country whose sole purpose is to kill Americans. God forbid someone uses some common sense instead of being afraid to hurt people's feelings. We can't have that can we!

By the way, I voted for Obama in his last election. So did a bunch of my uneducated workmates. Go figure.

So back to the topic at hand. To us white uneducated men, this Muller investigation is clearly a witch hunt. And when Trump stays in office because there is no evidence of collusion to win the Presidency, there's going to be another witch hunt. Guaranteed.

And with that, I'm staying out of this topic, which I shouldn't have jumped in to begin with. I just couldn't help myself when I see a reason Trump won is because clearly people aren't educated enough to pick the right candidate to run the country.
 

Darren Ingram

Premier Senior Member
SRD Member
Messages
2,543
Reaction score
2,012
@Darren Ingram you can dance around what JeffJordan believes by him citing that article, and you can stick your head in the sand that is not what was meant, and that's fine. I hear it on news stations, I hear it on PRN, I've heard it since Trump won. You lefties are grasping at anything and everything to figure out why Trump won. Citing that article just solidifies my argument, or better yet, my insults.
I'd really like to know what I'm dancing around here. I feel like you didn't really respond to any of my points and continue to harp on "being a lefty who hates the big bad Trump and wants him out of office."

Not once have I mentioned impeachment, or ever thought that was the solution. I sure as hell don't want it, I think Mike Pence is stuck in the 1950s with some of his views. I'd much rather have Trump as President.

I don't think people looking at what changed between 2012 and 2016 to cause some states to flip is "grasping" at anything. It's simply people curious about what caused people to vote the way to did. So, again, I feel your insults are unjustified.
No it wasn't. It's a simple question. Did Trump collude with the russians to win the Presidency.
A lot of recent news seems to point that direction.

Or did Hillary just blow it?
Already said yes.
Again, it goes back to the dumb white men argument.
Nobody but the right has claimed this is about "dumb" white men. As long as I've ever heard the term used in this context, "uneducated" equals "no college degree". Simple. It's just a statistic. A data point. Just that.

So when that fails, the left will go after his taxes and maybe that avenue will get him out of office.
To be honest, I don't know why his taxes are such a big deal. I haven't done any research on it, but as far as I'm aware, doesn't every President release theirs? What is he hiding?

Yet and still, I've never harped on that.
literally stopping at nothing to remove him from office.
Speaker Pelosi has said that they aren't really looking into impeachment at all, so I don't think that's accurate.
And coming up with bullshit sources citing why he won isn't helping your cause.
Stats are bullshit sources now, got it.
All the while insulting my intelligence, and those that look like me and are as uneducated as me. So again, I tell you, all of you who believe that can fuck right off. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
No one did insulted your intelligence. Thanks for the civility though.
To us white uneducated men, this Muller investigation is clearly a witch hunt.
I don't think uncovering truths about things that happened during the election, especially illegal things is a witch hunt. If there were no leads, if there was no evidence of any negative actions at all, then sure, it could be called that, but people confessing to crimes that they committed doesn't make it seem like a witch hunt to me, it just looks like truth being uncovered.
 

EarnhardtFan

Premier Senior Member
Banned
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
1,731
@EarnhardtFan then why would you like what Jeff said? One of his justifications is dumb people, more specific white dumb people, voted for Trump, and Hillary's team didn't account for that. Clearly only idiots would vote for Trump.
Because, like I said, it seemed like a pretty factual statement, uneducated doesn't necessarily mean dumb and I didn't really take it that way. There's also the fact that, at least to my knowledge, when white men in rural/suburban areas don't go to college it means that they likely go into manual labor jobs at like a car plant or a typical trade, and up until recently (again, to my knowledge) Trump was seen as someone who earned his fortune, a very successful "working man" if you will. So when someone who is seen as such promises to make jobs and the economy boom and seems pretty credible, that likely lead to A LOT of those kinds of people going to Trump's side, more than Clinton could recover from.
 
Last edited:

MrDude68

Premier Senior Member
SRD Member
Messages
2,235
Reaction score
2,905
Not everyone on the left thinks like that, or says things like that.
Never said they did.
In fact, I'd argue that more crap like that comes more from the right.
Have you been watching too much CNN? Lol. Take a look at both sides, not just one. Hannity is bad though, I'll grant that.
You want to talk about degrading? How about saying that certain groups of people shouldn't be allowed to get married,
They should be. What's worrisome is diminishing religious freedom as a byproduct of that. We were having this discussion in the other thread.
or that certain religions shouldn't be allowed to travel, and so on.
That was not a Muslim ban, that was a temporary ban on travel coming from certain countries known to be terrorist hotbeds. The fact that that got twisted all up by the lying media doesn't surprise me in the slightest though. The Obama administration even recognized those as "countries of concern."
Also, saying that the left offends those men in rural America, that's a pretty hefty generalization there. I'm a man from rural America, hell, a lot of my relatives have are uneducated males who worked in agriculture or in factories, etc. I don't dismiss their, or anyone's political opinion.
I said that the phrase comes across that way, not that the entire left thinks it is so. Although I do think the left at large has inadvertently offended many people in this way and in similar ways, and that's one of the reasons Trump resonates with them.
@MattyO calling me an arrogant, pompous asshole is quite frankly an attack on my character that I don't appreciate.
Well I can't argue with that. It definitely doesn't cultivate friendly discussion.
 
Last edited:

Darren Ingram

Premier Senior Member
SRD Member
Messages
2,543
Reaction score
2,012
Have you been watching too much CNN? Lol. Take a look at both sides, not just one. Hannity is bad though, I'll grant that.
I think it was here I said this, but I watch/read a variety of news sources. I try not to let one network dominate my news watching.

Unrelated point, but while I will no doubt agree with the fact that CNN has a strong liberal bias, at least they frequently have conservative guests on there for discussion. Just about any time I watch CNN, I can count on seeing at least one or two conservative guests per show. I can't say the same watching Fox for example.
They should be. What's worrisome is diminishing religious freedom as a byproduct of that. We were having this discussion in the other thread.
I also don't feel that religious freedom is diminishing, and I say that as a Baptist.
That was not a Muslim ban, that was a temporary ban on travel coming from certain countries known to be terrorist hotbeds. The fact that that got twisted all up by the lying media doesn't surprise me in the slightest though. The Obama administration even recognized those as "countries of concern."
Fair enough. But I'd counter that point about terrorists and say what are we doing/how are we policing domestic terrorists?
I said that the phrase comes across that way, not that the entire left thinks it is so. Although I do think the left at large has inadvertently offended many people in this way and in similar ways, and that's one of the reasons Trump resonates with them.
Fair. I can see how it could come across the wrong way.
 

JeffJordan

My name is no longer Jeff Jordan
SRD Member
Messages
10,683
Reaction score
4,829
I said that the phrase comes across that way, not that the entire left thinks it is so. Although I do think the left at large has inadvertently offended many people in this way and in similar ways, and that's one of the reasons Trump resonates with them.
You're right. That was extremely poor word choice and I'd like to apologize to who I've offended here. A better term would be white people who didn't graduate from college, who did indeed have a higher proportional turnout than expected for the election. Non-college educated white people tend to vote Republican, as do white people as a whole. On the other hand, non-college educated minorities tend to vote Democrat. This was documented in exit polls.

I do not think that non-college educated people are dumb. Sorry for the poor word choice earlier.

Well that was a pretty strong post, but Matt does have a point, JJ. Maybe you didn't mean it, but that phrase comes across exactly like this to all the men of rural America:

"You don't have the degree I have, and you live under a rock in the middle of nowhere. You have no status. You are insensitive to other people's suffering because of your sex and skin color. Your political opinions are therefore dismissed."

Isn't it pretty degrading when you think about it that way?
I never wanted to imply that anybody "lived under a rock in the middle of nowhere." I'm trying to say that, as an effort to stay informed, I need to turn to something larger than my own experiences or experiences of people I know personally. That isn't to say that those experiences don't matter - I wrote some of my own here. But it's just part of the formula. Anecdotal experience is powerful but not enough. I don't believe that requires a college degree.

I say this because some things I have previously believed turned out to be entirely wrong. For example, I really liked everything about the Affordable Care Act, and then found out a key thing I believed about it was incorrect. I did my best to incorporate that information into my views on it.

I'll be more careful with what I say.

No it wasn't. It's a simple question. Did Trump collude with the russians to win the Presidency. Yes or no? Or did Hillary just blow it? Again, it goes back to the dumb white men argument. Surely Hillary's team didn't blow it, they just forgot about the dumb white people who aren't sure who to vote for. If it's not Russia, it's dumb white people is the reason he's in office. What's next?
Did Trump collude with Russians? I don't know. That's become a secondary part of why Mueller is investigating. Saying that I know if Trump colluded/didn't collude seems like a premature judgment at this point. I want to stick with what is known for sure.

I answered the question as honestly as I could, but I'll try to elaborate further one more time. Plenty of things factored into Trump's win. Lower voter turnout. Plenty of Reagan Democrats flipped in key states. Clinton's unpopularity/the email server scandal. Many voters wanted an outsider. Many voters felt abandoned by Democrats. There were a lot of different reasons.

For the record, I've voted Republican too, just never for President, which is likely only because I've only been eligible to vote in one Presidential election. The only two Republicans I think I would have voted for President in recent history were Reagan in 1984, Bush in 1988, and Bush in 1992. Hindsight is 20/20 on that, of course, but I didn't like Mondale or Dukakis at all. I don't dislike Bill Clinton, but I just think he's super weird and I doubt I would have voted for him in 1992.

Anyway, I'm going to do my best to go back to the original topic. News today was prosecutors recommending no jail time for Michael Flynn.
 

RacerXero84

Obnoxious old fart
SRD Member
Messages
3,863
Reaction score
4,984
Anyone else laughing at how the DoJ/FBI selectively enforces US Codes? And ignores ones that probably would put a whole bunch of other politicians behind bars for years if not decades?
 

MattyO

Kinder Gentler Blowhard
Admin
Messages
8,834
Reaction score
13,214
I answered the question as honestly as I could, but I'll try to elaborate further one more time. Plenty of things factored into Trump's win. Lower voter turnout. Plenty of Reagan Democrats flipped in key states. Clinton's unpopularity/the email server scandal. Many voters wanted an outsider. Many voters felt abandoned by Democrats. There were a lot of different reasons.
Then you should have said that. But you didn't. And like you just stated, there is a dozen or more reasons why Trump won, or Hillary lost depending on how you look at it. You decided to use old uneducated white men as your reason. Out of all the possible reasons the Hillary's camp blew it, you decided to go with that reason. Why? You're not dumb. I know that. You're intellectual, smart, and calculating when you make an argument. Why put up something like that? Was it a shot at me because I'm one of the older guys on this board? Doesn't matter. It's over now.

Funny thing about data (I work with it everyday) is you can skew it, manipulate it however you want to fit your narrative. I get eye's rolled at me sometimes because I have young men with degrees who work under me and they think what I'm trying to teach them is total bullshit. It's the "I don't have a 4 year mechanical, or thermodynamics engineering degree, I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about attitude". And they can't stand the fact some people don't need a degree to get ahead in life or I'm where they are trying to go, and managed to do it without accumulating massive college debt. Point being, just because some of us old white men don't have college degrees, doesn't mean we are uneducated. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me I'm smart and good at what I do. I fucking know I'm smart and good at what I do. Because I busted my ass to get where I'm at. I'm the idiot who decided I didn't need college. I would say I took the easier route. Going to college and taking on all that debt, and the pressure of passing classes and exams was the more difficult route without question. And the connections made at college? Man, did I miss out on that. So yeah, you're talking directly to that blue collar, no education older white guy.

You should keep that in mind should you ever use that "older uneducated white men" argument if you're ever in reaching distance of an older white man. Some are very intellectual, and very smart and very passive and would love to debate that with you. And some you may find out are like me. If he's got the temper I have, he's not going to say much before he knocks your fucking teeth out. That my friend, you can bet the house on. I've had my ass kicked numerous times because I've been stupid and said things to someone I shouldn't have. It's a great life lesson to be careful what you say to another person. You may catch that person having a bad fucking day. Luckily for most in this new age world I am growing to hate more and more, we were on the internet where there is literally no consequences for things that are said.

Anyway, I've gone way off topic. I said in the other thread I should stay out of these discussions and just moderate. I haven't done what I promised myself I would do. I apologize for that. And I apologize for going off on you like I did. It was unprofessional, uncalled for, and gulp, uneducated. I could have worded my argument differently, but that's not who I am. And like @MrDude68 said, "It definitely doesn't cultivate friendly discussion."

So, with that, I'm out. And please don't stop debating or discussing because of me.
 

Darren Ingram

Premier Senior Member
SRD Member
Messages
2,543
Reaction score
2,012
I didn't think this needed a new thread, so I'll post it here. Michael Cohen has been subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee and will testify in mid February, before he testifies in front of the House in March.
 

RacerXero84

Obnoxious old fart
SRD Member
Messages
3,863
Reaction score
4,984
That should be entertaining to see.

A man who is on record for lying to congress, giving additional congressional testimony.

Just in case some of you aren't overly savvy with criminal justice procedures and whatnot.... that testimony won't be worth squat on any legal level.

Funny though, these two branches can't seem to come together to find a suitable solution to government shutdowns (and the resolutions today looking to force pay to unpaid workers that failed), but we got plenty of time to mess around continually pursuing something that has, to date, born no fruit against it's intended target. Either Trump is a criminal mastermind that the movies can't even portray well enough.... or there isn't anything there to find.
 
Top