Proof: The Russian Investigations are Phony and Partisan..

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2011
67,573
22,951
2,250
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I've seen the pic below in DOZENS of threads about the alleged Flynn connection to Russia. There is SO much irony in that picture -- it burns my soul. I finally decided to point it out..

Gotta first say -- I LOVE 3rd Party politics. Worked with the Green Party as an LParty representative on common issues. Spent many nights drinking and discussing politics with key Greens. Have NOTHING against Jill Stein. Don't believe she's guilty of much of anything other than being completely economically naive.

Who ELSE is at that table with Putin? Of course -- Jill Stein. A candidate for President of US that same year. A woman who actually DID influence the votes on election day and caused Hillary to lose 3 states. Because Hillary's margin of defeat in those KEY STATES was less than the votes for the Green Party. That is by definition, having the ability to ALTER the results of an election and DIRECTLY affect the votes..

How much was she paid to attend the RT Awards banquet? Why has her name NEVER BEEN MENTIONED in conjunction with the "The Russians are Coming to Get You" investigations? Did any of that money end up defraying campaign costs? What OTHER "contacts with High Level Russians" has she had?

Can't answer those questions? Can't show me where HER ass has been dragged thru the mud in rumors, leaks, investigations? Then --- there's PROOF --- this whole farce is a McCarthy style witchhunt.. Because OBVIOUSLY -- that woman at the table ALTERED the results of an election and caused Hillary to lose...

What this whole dust-up is -- is the pre-prepared ALIBI from the DNC and Dem Leadership all the way UP to Obama to cover THEIR Russian "connections" and more seriously as we're finding out in dribbles, the UNCONSCIONABLE abuse of Big Brother spying and leaking against political opponents..

russia_dinner2000.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jill Stein. A candidate for President of US that same year. A woman who actually DID influence the votes on election day and caused Hillary to lose 3 states. Because Hillary's margin of defeat in those KEY STATES was less than the votes for the Green Party. That is by definition, having the ability to ALTER the results of an election and DIRECTLY affect the votes..

The flaw, of course, is you're assuming that every vote for Stein would have been, in her absence, a vote for Clinton. You can't make that case. It's highly plausible that absent the choice of Stein (or another Green) many if not most of those votes would not have bothered to vote at all.

The other flaw is that the Green Party regularly fields a candidate, and 2016 was no exception. And Stein I believe has run before too.
 
I've seen the pic below in DOZENS of threads about the alleged Flynn connection to Russia. There is SO much irony in that picture -- it burns my soul. I finally decided to point it out..

Gotta first say -- I LOVE 3rd Party politics. Worked with the Green Party as an LParty representative on common issues. Spent many nights drinking and discussing politics with key Greens. Have NOTHING against Jill Stein. Don't believe she's guilty of much of anything other than being completely economically naive.

Who ELSE is at that table with Putin? Of course -- Jill Stein. A candidate for President of US that same year. A woman who actually DID influence the votes on election day and caused Hillary to lose 3 states. Because Hillary's margin of defeat in those KEY STATES was less than the votes for the Green Party. That is by definition, having the ability to ALTER the results of an election and DIRECTLY affect the votes..

How much was she paid to attend the RT Awards banquet? Why has her name NEVER BEEN MENTIONED in conjunction with the "The Russians are Coming to Get You" investigations? Did any of that money end up defraying campaign costs? What OTHER "contacts with High Level Russians" has she had?

Can't answer those questions? Can't show me where HER ass has been dragged thru the mud in rumors, leaks, investigations? Then --- there's PROOF --- this whole farce is a McCarthy style witchhunt.. Because OBVIOUSLY -- that woman at the table ALTERED the results of an election and caused Hillary to lose...

What this whole dust-up is -- is the pre-prepared ALIBI from the DNC and Dem Leadership all the way UP to Obama to cover THEIR Russian "connections" and more seriously as we're finding out in dribbles, the UNCONSCIONABLE abuse of Big Brother spying and leaking against political opponents..

russia_dinner2000.jpg

You are correct Stein caused more harm to Clinton in key states than the Russian Fake News that the DNC is trying to convince everyone as the reason why Clinton lost.

Sanders voters that were outraged at the mistreatment of their candidate during the primary season either stayed home or went to Stein and no one to blame for this but Clinton and DNC leadership.

If Stein thought for a moment Trump was a threat she would have told those planning to vote for her to cast their vote for Clinton but she did not, so hell yeah she is the reason why Clinton lost in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
 
Jill Stein. A candidate for President of US that same year. A woman who actually DID influence the votes on election day and caused Hillary to lose 3 states. Because Hillary's margin of defeat in those KEY STATES was less than the votes for the Green Party. That is by definition, having the ability to ALTER the results of an election and DIRECTLY affect the votes..

The flaw, of course, is you're assuming that every vote for Stein would have been, in her absence, a vote for Clinton. You can't make that case. It's highly plausible that absent the choice of Stein (or another Green) many if not most of those votes would not have bothered to vote at all.

The other flaw is that the Green Party regularly fields a candidate, and 2016 was no exception. And Stein I believe has run before too.
Which has EXACTLY what to do with influencing THIS election?
 
Jill Stein. A candidate for President of US that same year. A woman who actually DID influence the votes on election day and caused Hillary to lose 3 states. Because Hillary's margin of defeat in those KEY STATES was less than the votes for the Green Party. That is by definition, having the ability to ALTER the results of an election and DIRECTLY affect the votes..

The flaw, of course, is you're assuming that every vote for Stein would have been, in her absence, a vote for Clinton. You can't make that case. It's highly plausible that absent the choice of Stein (or another Green) many if not most of those votes would not have bothered to vote at all.

The other flaw is that the Green Party regularly fields a candidate, and 2016 was no exception. And Stein I believe has run before too.
Which has EXACTLY what to do with influencing THIS election?

Dial back the aerosol propellants. I said nothing about "influencing this election"; I pointed out flaws in the OP's case.

And post 5 just made the same leap.
 
Jill Stein. A candidate for President of US that same year. A woman who actually DID influence the votes on election day and caused Hillary to lose 3 states. Because Hillary's margin of defeat in those KEY STATES was less than the votes for the Green Party. That is by definition, having the ability to ALTER the results of an election and DIRECTLY affect the votes..

The flaw, of course, is you're assuming that every vote for Stein would have been, in her absence, a vote for Clinton. You can't make that case. It's highly plausible that absent the choice of Stein (or another Green) many if not most of those votes would not have bothered to vote at all.

The other flaw is that the Green Party regularly fields a candidate, and 2016 was no exception. And Stein I believe has run before too.








What flaw is that? You haven't addressed the central question and that is why is she never mentioned when for all of your faulty logic she DID have an effect on the election. And provably so.
 
Jill Stein. A candidate for President of US that same year. A woman who actually DID influence the votes on election day and caused Hillary to lose 3 states. Because Hillary's margin of defeat in those KEY STATES was less than the votes for the Green Party. That is by definition, having the ability to ALTER the results of an election and DIRECTLY affect the votes..

The flaw, of course, is you're assuming that every vote for Stein would have been, in her absence, a vote for Clinton. You can't make that case. It's highly plausible that absent the choice of Stein (or another Green) many if not most of those votes would not have bothered to vote at all.

The other flaw is that the Green Party regularly fields a candidate, and 2016 was no exception. And Stein I believe has run before too.

What flaw is that? You haven't addressed the central question and that is why is she never mentioned when for all of your faulty logic she DID have an effect on the election. And provably so.

I just got done SPELLING OUT what the flaw is. Go forth and learn how to read.

Oh and spew your "proof" once you've done that. Oughta be a hoot.
 
Of course the investigation is phony! If there had been any proof of Trump having the Russians alter the end results in any way, it would have already come out. Instead of trying to divide the various parties further, the democrats should be playing it 'smart' in trying to bring all the political parties together instead of working on their 'summer of hate' agenda.
 
Jill Stein. A candidate for President of US that same year. A woman who actually DID influence the votes on election day and caused Hillary to lose 3 states. Because Hillary's margin of defeat in those KEY STATES was less than the votes for the Green Party. That is by definition, having the ability to ALTER the results of an election and DIRECTLY affect the votes..

The flaw, of course, is you're assuming that every vote for Stein would have been, in her absence, a vote for Clinton. You can't make that case. It's highly plausible that absent the choice of Stein (or another Green) many if not most of those votes would not have bothered to vote at all.

The other flaw is that the Green Party regularly fields a candidate, and 2016 was no exception. And Stein I believe has run before too.

Whats the significance of "they always run a candidate"? I'm not saying that she RAN just because of coordination and support from the Russians. I'm just saying that there are TONS of more evidence that she influenced absolute votes. And yet never has her name come up in the whole damn Russian investigation.. Motive and access.

As for the silly idea that any of the Greens would have voted for Trump or Gary Johnson, even if only 80% of her votes came from Clinton -- that's STILL the margin of victory in 3 states. Remember also -- the Greens TRIPLED their net pop vote in this election...
 
I forget to mention the other OBVIOUS hypocrisies and weirdness of this silence..

1) The Green Party platform has ALWAYS been fully derived from Socialism and highly compatible with an ex-Commie like Putin. As opposed to the ridiculous concept of Putin going out of his to elect a war hawk Repub that wants a BIGGER defense budget and a provocative attitude all over the world.

2) Biggest yuck (if this was funny) is the photo credit comes from Mother Jones. A fine journalism outfit that does important stories that no else will do. And they generally do them well. But the EXTREME irony here is that they posted pic to slime Flynn. And obviously just neglected to point out the problematic presence of a sympatico Prez candidate being at the same table..
 
Jill Stein. A candidate for President of US that same year. A woman who actually DID influence the votes on election day and caused Hillary to lose 3 states. Because Hillary's margin of defeat in those KEY STATES was less than the votes for the Green Party. That is by definition, having the ability to ALTER the results of an election and DIRECTLY affect the votes..

The flaw, of course, is you're assuming that every vote for Stein would have been, in her absence, a vote for Clinton. You can't make that case. It's highly plausible that absent the choice of Stein (or another Green) many if not most of those votes would not have bothered to vote at all.

The other flaw is that the Green Party regularly fields a candidate, and 2016 was no exception. And Stein I believe has run before too.

Whats the significance of "they always run a candidate"? I'm not saying that she RAN just because of coordination and support from the Russians. I'm just saying that there are TONS of more evidence that she influenced absolute votes. And yet never has her name come up in the whole damn Russian investigation.. Motive and access.

As for the silly idea that any of the Greens would have voted for Trump or Gary Johnson, even if only 80% of her votes came from Clinton -- that's STILL the margin of victory in 3 states. Remember also -- the Greens TRIPLED their net pop vote in this election...

Nah, I think you're making leaps. You can choose 100%, 80%, 20%, anything you want but it's all guesswork.
I don't see how a Hillary Clinton voter would switch to Jill Stein given the stakes -- certainly not in a close state. I've cast a 3P vote like that in the past but I first made damn sure I did it in a deep red state where my vote meant nothing except the drop-in-the-bucket protest against the Duopoly that it was.

A far stronger case can be made that Stein voters genuinely wanted Jill Stein. There would be no other reason for them to do it in a swing state --- anyone who intended an anti-Clinton vote already had Rump as a choice.

We'll never know of course but I don't think you make a strong case assuming a Stein vote is a potential Clinton vote.
 
no proof of guilt or innocence, the investigation is in progress.


like the Superbowl a halftime tied 0-0 ... no winner or loser... IT AIN'T F''N OVER !
 
don't see how a Hillary Clinton voter would switch to Jill Stein given the stakes -- certainly not in a close state.

Then you're not really analyzing the situation. After the DNC SCREWED bernie with the SuperDelegate card and then was found to be LAUGHING about it --- There were a LOT of #NeverHillary lefties feeling raw and burnt in this election. That was a REAL fracture in the Dem Party. And A LOT of bad blood. That's WHY the Green party totals tripled in this election. They WANTED a socialist like Bernie...
 
Of course the investigation is phony! If there had been any proof of Trump having the Russians alter the end results in any way, it would have already come out. Instead of trying to divide the various parties further, the democrats should be playing it 'smart' in trying to bring all the political parties together instead of working on their 'summer of hate' agenda.

Or nominating fire brands as DNC Chairmen who state a list of folks he wants to kick out of the party...
For instance. Just Sayin.. Let's not help them too much... :biggrin:
 
no proof of guilt or innocence, the investigation is in progress.


like the Superbowl a halftime tied 0-0 ... no winner or loser... IT AIN'T F''N OVER !

Why is Jill Stein's ass still in the LOCKER ROOM? Isn't this suppose to be an investigation of Russian influence in the election? Ever hear her name mentioned in any press or Congressional hearings? NOPE -- you haven't. NO one on the Dem side is interested in investigating the MORE OBVIOUS influence on vote totals and the Russians. It's hypocrisy and show trial and more importantly and ALIBI for the wrong-doings of Team Blue SPYING on the political opposition...
 
don't see how a Hillary Clinton voter would switch to Jill Stein given the stakes -- certainly not in a close state.

Then you're not really analyzing the situation. After the DNC SCREWED bernie with the SuperDelegate card and then was found to be LAUGHING about it --- There were a LOT of #NeverHillary lefties feeling raw and burnt in this election. That was a REAL fracture in the Dem Party. And A LOT of bad blood. That's WHY the Green party totals tripled in this election. They WANTED a socialist like Bernie...

Again, you're plugging in your own assumed motivations -- for third parties, pun unintended -- that you don't know to be factual. And not very plausibly. Not buying. :eusa_snooty:

Nor do I think you've made a solid case for "why the Green party totals tripled". It's a possibility for part of that increase but hardly the only one.
 
Last edited:
don't see how a Hillary Clinton voter would switch to Jill Stein given the stakes -- certainly not in a close state.

Then you're not really analyzing the situation. After the DNC SCREWED bernie with the SuperDelegate card and then was found to be LAUGHING about it --- There were a LOT of #NeverHillary lefties feeling raw and burnt in this election. That was a REAL fracture in the Dem Party. And A LOT of bad blood. That's WHY the Green party totals tripled in this election. They WANTED a socialist like Bernie...

Again, you're plugging in your own assumed motivations -- for third parties, pun unintended -- that you don't know to be factual. And not very plausibly. Not buying. :eusa_snooty:

Good -- go shop somewhere and IGNORE the evidence that this whole investigation is simply partisan and a fraud.
Dems aren't interested in Russian influence in our election. If they WERE -- Jill Stein would have been mentioned A LOT...
 

Forum List

Back
Top