VOTE! Election thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

What will be the results of todays vote?

  • Trump wins big

    Votes: 11 15.3%
  • Trump wins small

    Votes: 12 16.7%
  • No decision by tomorrow morning

    Votes: 27 37.5%
  • Biden wins small

    Votes: 15 20.8%
  • Biden wins big

    Votes: 7 9.7%

  • Total voters
    72
Feb 7, 2007
1,426
208
1,693
Denver
“You guys”???

Look it is okay you ignore and are blind to your candidate faux pas and only view the other candidate as having real issues. Many do it. But few own it and admit it as much as you. Hats off.
Yeah, it is this crazy idea where I admit both sides have flaws and try to weigh them equally.

By the new Trump scale Light Corruption (alleged and overseas) is better than a half dozen convictions, shut down charities, impeachments, all within the US system.

Neither side is perfect in this mess. But one is clearly more corrupt. If I have to "own" the less corrupt one... I will. Still not going to blindly follow them though. I would welcome some real investigations into things too. They seemed to have started investigations in Dec 2019 and fizzled out into only a few tweets. Weird.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,086
17,912
1,743
James Clapper, director of national intelligence under Obama But in front of the House Intelligence Committee (under oath in the US House),

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Andrew MCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI under oath acknowledged that FBI investigators had been unable to verify the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

Ben Rhodes, Obama administration deputy national security adviser who tweeted in July 2019, following Robert Mueller’s public testimony to Congress, that the Trump campaign sought Russian help and that if Trump was not president, he would have been convicted. But, under oath, responding to House investigators, he acknowledged that he would not have seen any information about what the Trump campaign was doing.

Samantha Power, former ambassador to the United Nations, who accused Trump of catering to Russian President Vladimir Putin during the 2016 campaign. Under oath, her story changed. Asked if she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she replied: “I am not in possession of anything — I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.”

Susan Rice, former national security adviser, appearing on ABC’s “This Week” in July 2018 stating that the Trump policies were benefiting Putin’s interests. However, Rice had previously testified, under oath, to House investigators that she hadn’t seen any evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.

There is more.

If you believed the Russian story from the Democrats. YOU WERE LIED TO!!!


James Clapper, director of national intelligence under Obama LIED TO YOU.
Andrew MCabe, the former deputy director under Obama of the FBI LIED TO YOU.
Ben Rhodes, Obama administration deputy national security adviser LIED TO YOU.
Samantha Power, Obama's former ambassador to the United Nations LIED TO YOU.
Susan Rice, Obama's former national security adviser LIED TO YOU.
 

PF5

Cowboy
Jan 3, 2014
729
222
593
James Clapper, director of national intelligence under Obama But in front of the House Intelligence Committee (under oath in the US House),

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Andrew MCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI under oath acknowledged that FBI investigators had been unable to verify the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

Ben Rhodes, Obama administration deputy national security adviser who tweeted in July 2019, following Robert Mueller’s public testimony to Congress, that the Trump campaign sought Russian help and that if Trump was not president, he would have been convicted. But, under oath, responding to House investigators, he acknowledged that he would not have seen any information about what the Trump campaign was doing.

Samantha Power, former ambassador to the United Nations, who accused Trump of catering to Russian President Vladimir Putin during the 2016 campaign. Under oath, her story changed. Asked if she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she replied: “I am not in possession of anything — I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.”

Susan Rice, former national security adviser, appearing on ABC’s “This Week” in July 2018 stating that the Trump policies were benefiting Putin’s interests. However, Rice had previously testified, under oath, to House investigators that she hadn’t seen any evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.

There is more.

If you believed the Russian story from the Democrats. YOU WERE LIED TO!!!


James Clapper, director of national intelligence under Obama LIED TO YOU.
Andrew MCabe, the former deputy director under Obama of the FBI LIED TO YOU.
Ben Rhodes, Obama administration deputy national security adviser LIED TO YOU.
Samantha Power, Obama's former ambassador to the United Nations LIED TO YOU.
Susan Rice, Obama's former national security adviser LIED TO YOU.
Donald Trump, POTUS LIES TO YOU.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,731
9,994
1,743
Earth
The mass media is far more dangerous than either Biden or Trump. Make your vote count against Mass Media hysteria. 2020 has made this crystal clear. Make your vote count and hurt them the most....so they don't pull another 2020 ever again.
 
Nov 8, 2007
3,505
1,145
1,743
Bartlesville
Also one of my questions. Wouldn't it be illegal to simply start searching through the private emails and documents on somebody else's computer? Surely that violates a service contract.
I saw something that said the laptop was left at the shop and never picked up. The shop owner then filed the appropriate paperwork and claimed ownership of the laptop. At that point, is when the owner claims to have started contacting people about its contents.
 
Sep 12, 2008
344
93
1,578
Gallup polls show majority believe media deserves blame for Political divide but could also heal it if they wanted to..

"More than eight in 10 Americans say the media bears "a great deal" (48%) or "a moderate amount" (36%) of blame for political division in this country. But nearly as many say the media could do "a great deal" (49%) or "a moderate amount" (35%) to heal those divisions."

The Internet makes it worse.. shocker!!

"Americans are largely overwhelmed by the sheer volume and speed of news coverage, and 78% say the spread of misinformation online is "a major problem," exceeding all other challenges posed by the media environment. Nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults would like to see major internet companies find ways to exclude false information or hateful expression online."

But that its mostly Republicans and Independents that have unfavorable opinions of the media.. but for the dems its a love fest..

"Seventy-one percent of Republicans but far fewer Democrats (22%) and independents (52%) have an unfavorable opinion of the news media. Across all measures, Republicans express more negative sentiments about the media than do Democrats and independents."
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,426
208
1,693
Denver
So, it’s ok if the other guy did it?
When one example is simply alleged with pdf snaps of an email and the other one is tried in US courts with convictions. Yes...

Even if they both had baggage you compare the baggage. How is this so hard for you all to understand? I get it that you all simply ignore the Trump baggage. I won't just ignore it from any side. But there are certainly sliding scales to everything. 8 convictions compared to 0. Hmm
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,086
17,912
1,743
When one example is simply alleged with pdf snaps of an email and the other one is tried in US courts with convictions. Yes...

Even if they both had baggage you compare the baggage. How is this so hard for you all to understand? I get it that you all simply ignore the Trump baggage. I won't just ignore it from any side. But there are certainly sliding scales to everything. 8 convictions compared to 0. Hmm
Your suggestion there is nothing here bc you compare convictions is laughable.

Can't have convictions without indictments and a trial.... How is this so hard for you all to understand?

All is alleged until you have a trial. pdf snaps LOL. Of course they are, they're not giving you the laptop to satisfy your curiosity. And it's not "an" email, it's thousands of them.

And you are ignoring the evidence. I suspect we can go back to your comments regarding the claims against Trump and Russia and you bought into it. I also suspect you still believe it in the face of a two year investigation into the matter that found nothing other than random convictions that had nothing to do with collusion between Trump and Russia. Why? Because there wasn't any collusion.

There is far more evidence here than anything they had concerning Trump.

Do you not find it a bit troublesome that within the Mueller investigation they didn't discover the payments coming to the people connected to the very group that paid for the anti-Trump dossier? Or no convictions for those who lied to the FISA court? That doesn't raise any red flags?

Do you think you would get away with lying to a FISA court about investigating the President of the United States?

It's money laundering and likely other crimes.

You're ignoring the evidence.

Let's put together a special prosecutor (who doesn't like Biden) and a team of high paid lawyers (all who don't like Biden and have donated to Trump for President) and give them two years to go after Biden and anyone connected to him. Then and only then are we comparing apples to apples.

"banana republic" comes to mind. It's kickbacks and related crime while you prosecute anyone connected to the opposite political party for anything you can find.
 
Last edited:
Feb 7, 2007
1,426
208
1,693
Denver
Your suggestion there is nothing here bc you compare convictions is laughable.

Can't have convictions without indictments and a trial.... How is this so hard for you all to understand?

All is alleged until you have a trial. pdf snaps LOL. Of course they are, they're not giving you the laptop to satisfy your curiosity. And it's not "an" email, it's thousands of them.

And you are ignoring the evidence. I suspect we can go back to your comments regarding the claims against Trump and Russia and you bought into it. I also suspect you still believe it in the face of a two year investigation into the matter that found nothing other than random convictions that had nothing to do with collusion between Trump and Russia. Why? Because there wasn't any collusion.

There is far more evidence here than anything they had concerning Trump.

You're ignoring the evidence.

Let's put together a special prosecutor (who doesn't like Biden) and a team of high paid lawyers (all who don't like Biden and have donated to Trump for President) and give them two years to go after Biden and anyone connected to him. Then and only then are we comparing apples to apples.

"banana republic" comes to mind. It's kickbacks and related crime while you prosecute anyone connected to the opposite political party for anything you can find.
Yeah and the FBI has had these since Dec 2019 supposedly. No indictments yet.

Remember that unmasking Barr was doing? How many indictments came from that? Remember Hillary's emails? How many indictments came from that?

Your track record for predicting investigations and indictments at this point are like 0/25. While Trump's are what 8/25?

HAHAHAH "far more evidence here" HAHAHA. Remember the $160K payment to Stormy with checks, emails, testimony, bank records, etc? That resulted in convictions. HAHAHA fare more evidence. You have a pdf screenshot of an email that was not legit enough for Fox News to even run. HAHAHAHA.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,086
17,912
1,743
Yeah and the FBI has had these since Dec 2019 supposedly. No indictments yet.

Remember that unmasking Barr was doing? How many indictments came from that? Remember Hillary's emails? How many indictments came from that?

Your track record for predicting investigations and indictments at this point are like 0/25. While Trump's are what 8/25?

HAHAHAH "far more evidence here" HAHAHA. Remember the $160K payment to Stormy with checks, emails, testimony, bank records, etc? That resulted in convictions. HAHAHA fare more evidence. You have a pdf screenshot of an email that was not legit enough for Fox News to even run. HAHAHAHA.
Hunter Biden left laptop at repair shop, owner tells Senate panel