Posts made by pppucci

@Frederick:

@pppucci:

@Frederick:

There were all sorts of allegations about the election being rigged by different groups - including the DNC that blatantly stole the nomination away from Bernie Sanders.  Donald Trump pointed out how their was fraud on BOTH sides of the campaign which was all working to prevent him from being the nominee, and after being the nominee to prevent him from being elected.  Trump also pointed out that the election was rigged against Bernie.  It's safe to say that there was a lot of allegations being made, some of them provable, some needed to be investigated, etc.

BUT Obama did NOTHING!
Why?
Because it was universally expected that Hillary would win the election easily.. in a landslide.  Obama wasn't about to risk doing anything at all because that might change the lead that Hillary THOUGHT she had. 
In other words, rather than do the right thing, and what he was obligated to do.  Obama chose to IGNORE all the allegations just to play it safe and preserve Hillary's lead.  Well. that plan BACKFIRED!

You find debating easy because you ignore facts.  We now know that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for possible ccooperation with the Russian meddling since July of 2016, but all indications are that they kept that information from the White House.  (that was back in a day when the WH did not try to intervene or be kept abreast of FBI investigations).  Apparently, Obama did not become aware of the Trump campaign ties to Russia until a month AFTER THE ELECTION.  The fact that Russia was behind the hack of the DNC was made public at the beginning of October.  So you can't state that he did nothing.  You guys are again swallowing whole whatever Trump tweets out without examining it critically.
And the whole Hilary-Bernie thing came out before the convention and was well litigated there.  You can't argue that Obama hid anything.

Your response contradicts itself.  First of all.. if the FBI knew something since July 2016 and didn't say anything - the head of the FBI should have been fired.  What you are referring to  is that they think Russia managed to hack into Hillary's e-mails and get them and post them.   They say that as many as 7 different parties / countries did the same thing.  WikiLeaks got them from someone other than Russia.  How about this?  Why not focus on Hillary Clinton deleting 30,000 government e-mails from the server she illegally had in her house AFTER being ordered by Congress to turn them over?  That should have put her in prison instantly.  "Oh dear!  Someone has hacked Hillary's computer and found what she illegally deleted!" 
If you can prove that any of Hillary's emails were hacked and posted online, please provide the link.
The theft of the nomination from Bernie Sanders was not litigated.  Bernie just didn't complain because as we now know, Bernie and his wife are whores for money and can easily be bought.  Right after endorsing Hillary, Bernie magically pulled $600,000 out of thin air to purchase house #3.

Your saying that Obama did not keep abreast of FBI investigations.  Hmm.. that is part of the job of being president.  The president has daily briefings about such things.  If that information wasn't important enough before the election (when he was certain Hillary would win), why did it suddenly become so important that he would antagonize Russia with sanctions after the election?  Sanctions he knew would be rescinded because they were absurd.

Frederick, you really do need a civics lesson.  The FBI investigation into Russian meddling has two parts.  One is a counter-intelligence investigation, which perhaps would find its way into the President's daily briefing.  The other was a domestic criminal investigation into possible collusion.  The White House and DOJ ethics rules are supposed to be kept separate, for obvious reasons.  There is a great potential for abuse of power if the president were to try to get his friends off easy or if he were to sic the FBI on his enemies.  The president should not and Obama was not briefed on the collusion aspect.  The sanctions imposed were for the hacking, not for any possible collusion (which I agree has not been proven….yet) . I have pointed out multiple times that the Obama administration did make the Russian meddling public before the election.  One could argue that he should have imposed sanctions at that time, but to say he did nothing is simply not true.
And now for your history lesson.  Russia, nor any foreign entity ever hacked Hillary's e-mails.  Donald Trump called on them to do it, but they were never successful. I will not defend the deletions.  That was not a good idea.  But of the 35,000 that were examined by the FBI, only 3 were marked classified when they were sent, and another 100 were retrospectively classified. But Hillary is not president. She is not Our Lady of the Liberals.
You have conflated Hillary's and Podesta's emails.  Only Assange has claimed that Russia is not his source--do you believe him or do you believe 17 intelligence agencies in the US?

@raphjd:

Just because leftist outlets buried the stuff, doesn't mean everyone did.

What leftist outlets buried what stories? One example will suffice.

@raphjd:

Go ahead, thanks to Obama's pathetic attempt at race baiting the issue, we found out Ferguson is no where as bad as claimed.

100 FBI agents and 20,000 pages of reports showed the only lie came from blacks who claimed "hands up, don't shoot" and Michael Brown dindu nuffin.

I will complememt you on your civility, but you have your facts all wrong.  Spintendo, in another thread, referenced the DOJ report of policing practices in Ferguson.  Since I suspect you haven't read it and probably won't, here's a look at its table of contents:

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
REPORT SUMMARY
….............................
................................
................................
........
1
II.
BACKGROUND

6
III.
FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON GENERATING REVENUE
.
9
IV.
FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES VIOLATE THE LAW AND UNDERMINE COMMUNITY TRUST, ESPECIALLY AMONG AFRICAN
AMERICANS
.15
A.
Ferguson’s Police Practices
.
1.
FPD Engages in a Pattern of Unconstitutional Stops and Arrests in Violation
of the Fourth Amendment
.
16
2.
FPD Engages in a Pattern
of
First Amendment Violations
................................
..
24
3.
FPD Engages in a Pattern of Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth
Amendment

28
B.
Ferguson’s Municipal Court Practices
................................
................................
...........
42
1.
Court Practices Impose Substantial and Unnecessary Barriers to the
Challenge or Resolution of Municipal Code Violations
.
43
2.
The Court Imposes Unduly Harsh Penalties for Missed Payments or
Appearances
................................
................................
................................
..........
54
C.
Ferguson Law Enforcement Practices Disproportionately Harm Ferguson’s
African -AmericanResidents and Are Driven in Part by Racial Bias
............................
62
1.
Ferguson’s Law Enforcement Actions Impose a Disparate Impact on African
Americans that Violates Federal Law
................................
................................
...
63
2.
Ferguson’s Law Enforcement Practices Are Motivated in Part by
Discriminatory Intent in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Other
Federal Laws
................................
................................
................................
.........
70
D.
Ferguson Law Enforcement Practices Erode Community Trust, Especially Among Ferguson’s African-American
Residents, and Make Policing Less Effective, More Difficult, and Less Safe
.
79
1.
Ferguson’s
Unlawful Police and Court  Practices Have Led to Distrust and
Resentment Among Many in Ferguson
................................
................................
79
2.
FPD’s Exercise of Discretion, Even When Lawful, Often Undermines
Community Trust and Public Safety
................................
................................
.....
81
3.
FPD’s Failure to Respond to Complaints of Officer Misconduct Further
Erodes Community Trust
................................
................................
......................
82
4.
FPD’s Lack of Community Engagement Increases the Likelihood of Discriminatory Policing and Damages Public Trust

You may have been speaking about the Michael Brown case itself, but clearly there was a wider systemic problem in Ferguson.

@raphjd:

@pppucci:

@raphjd:

Contrary to what you guys think, liberals do not insistent that everyone march in lockstep.

While that is technically true, you'll still get a bike lock to the head or have the building in set on fire, if you don't.

You really are fixated on Stanford.

Berkeley is where they set the building on fire.

Clearly you want to limit the scope of these kinds of things.

My bad.  I get all those northern California universities confused.

@raphjd:

Nobody from the DNC cooperated with the FBI''s investigation into the hacking.  In fact, they refused to cooperate.   You'd know that if you watched the hearings.

Trump had a less than 3% chance to win, so Democrats didn't care.

"News" and social media outlets conspired to bury news that made Hillary and liberals look bad, while promoting stories, true or not, that made Trump look bad

You are not telling me anything new.  I have watched the hearings.  The FBI was calling the computer help desk at the DNC and never contacted any of the leadership.  But I'm sure the DNC could have done better.  I'l; agree that no one thought Trump could win and the democrats got complacent, but I don't think they buried any anti-Hilary stories.  The email private server was all over the news, and the chants of "lock her up!" got as much coverage as anything else.  And you want to talk about social media? What about the stories that she had Parkinson's or was dying or Pizzagate?  Her associates were mysteriously dying, she was taking millions from foreign powers, that the Clinton foundation only gave 10% to charity?  You have a selective memory.
Trump won, because among other things, he owned grabbing women by the pussy and completely ignored calls to release his tax returns.

@mhorndisk:

I started this post before Fox, Drudge, or the White House mentioned it. That's why I was like, wow I think this is going to be big, and Fred was like, nah, same old same old, and then it was picked up by everyone. And I think you kind of stopped a little short of the full interview. Anyway, this is a total waste of time talking to you about this. Either you are warping this into something it's not because you really can't deal with the Truth, or you're having a real good laugh trying to make us look crazy for arguing against nonsense, but that would be a pretty lame existence…

I am not toying with you and obviously we are not going to have a meeting of the minds on the significance of the reporting or what it represents.  But I will challenge you when you get your facts wrong.  I listened to the whole video and that transcript I quoted is readily available, but interestingly, not on Project Veritas' site. ( they paraphrase him in the text reporting of the conversation).  The bombshell was clearly what Zucker supposedly said, but Bonifield was simply repeating what his boss told him.  And since he thought he was talking to a journalism student, who knows if he even exaggerated that?  It's not like they have a memo from Zucker instructing the politics news team to get back to Russia.

@raphjd:

SJW's will always claim that Michael Brown was a lovely, cuddly,  teddybear, who dindu nuffin.

Of course they refuse to accept that 100 FBI agents and 20,000 pages of reports cleared the police in this case and in general.    Our (then) race baiter in chief sent them in hoping to find racism.   Of course he was silent when the findings came out because it didn't come out the way he wanted.

Before you assert that the police were cleared, isuggest you read the report linked by Spintendo.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report_1.pdf

@raphjd:

Actually, all the complaints have come from liberals wanting to ban "wrong thinkers", such as myself.      They want a bike lock liberal echo chamber.

Not surprisingly, most of the complaints about this section are from people who freely admit they have never read anything posted here.   They are only complaining based on the titles of the threads and deeming it a white supremacist haven.

That bike-lock liberal thing is getting old, don't you think?  What if I referred to all of you as Ferguson whites?

@raphjd:

The left;  Obama knew about and allowed Russia to mess with US elections, but so what, let's blame Trump.

How did Obama "allow" the Russians to meddle? The hacking of John Podesta's emails and the DNC had already occurred before anyone knew it was Russia and Obama's administration announced it was Russia on October 6.  Meanwhile, Trump was on the campaign trail, quoting from every leaked email and proclaiming giddily "I love WikiLeaks!"  Now who was facilitating the Russians meddling with our elections?

@mhorndisk:

No, what was said: The CEO (ZUCKER) held a MEETING and ORDERED the staff to go back to covering Russia - NOT as you are saying: "a second hand conversation that was overheard" or something like that. You are claiming that something else was said that was not actually said, at all.

You want to believe the reporting on the story, but how about a transcript:

BONIFIELD: Yeah, so, my boss, I shouldn’t say this, my boss yesterday, we were having a discussion about this dental shoot and he goes, he’s like, “I just want you to know what we’re up against, here.” …

BONIFIELD: He goes, just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords, and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords and the CEO of CNN said in our internal meeting, he said, “Good job, everybody, covering the climate accords. But we’re done with it. Let’s get back to Russia.

PV JOURNALIST: The CEO?

BONIFIELD: Yeah. So even the climate accords, he was like, “Okay, a day or so, but we’re moving back to Russia.”

So Bonifield is quoting his boss quoting the "CEO."  That is the definition of second-hand.

And BTW, I don't know what planet you are from, but here on earth, magazines and newspapers are in the business of selling more magazines and newspapers and TV shows are in the business of ratings.  CNN may be showing a commercial bias, but any right or left leanings are dictated by their ratings.  Maybe they seem liberal because all the conservatives are watching Fox News for their news/entertainment.

@raphjd:

Contrary to what you guys think, liberals do not insistent that everyone march in lockstep.

While that is technically true, you'll still get a bike lock to the head or have the building in set on fire, if you don't.

You really are fixated on Stanford.

@Frederick:

There were all sorts of allegations about the election being rigged by different groups - including the DNC that blatantly stole the nomination away from Bernie Sanders.  Donald Trump pointed out how their was fraud on BOTH sides of the campaign which was all working to prevent him from being the nominee, and after being the nominee to prevent him from being elected.  Trump also pointed out that the election was rigged against Bernie.  It's safe to say that there was a lot of allegations being made, some of them provable, some needed to be investigated, etc.

BUT Obama did NOTHING!
Why?
Because it was universally expected that Hillary would win the election easily.. in a landslide.  Obama wasn't about to risk doing anything at all because that might change the lead that Hillary THOUGHT she had. 
In other words, rather than do the right thing, and what he was obligated to do.  Obama chose to IGNORE all the allegations just to play it safe and preserve Hillary's lead.  Well. that plan BACKFIRED!

You find debating easy because you ignore facts.  We now know that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for possible ccooperation with the Russian meddling since July of 2016, but all indications are that they kept that information from the White House.  (that was back in a day when the WH did not try to intervene or be kept abreast of FBI investigations).  Apparently, Obama did not become aware of the Trump campaign ties to Russia until a month AFTER THE ELECTION.  The fact that Russia was behind the hack of the DNC was made public at the beginning of October.  So you can't state that he did nothing.  You guys are again swallowing whole whatever Trump tweets out without examining it critically.
And the whole Hilary-Bernie thing came out before the convention and was well litigated there.  You can't argue that Obama hid anything.

@mhorndisk:

He was in on it. Liberals always blame Conservatives for what they are doing. Rules for Radicals. That's their playbook.

He was in on what? The Russian meddling?  Are you starting to believe the wackiness of our President?  Really, he could say the moon is made of cheese and you guys would be calling for import taxes on lunar cheese!

@mhorndisk:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5485241211001/?#sp=show-clips

WRONG! Jeff Zucker told staff to go back to reporting on Russia when other stories came up because it was for ratings. You are incorrect. But I think it's WILLFUL ignorance.

You guys are so gullible and swallow whatever Fox News puts out, when they are the ones pandering to ratings.  First off, that CNN producer who so eloquently makes your case never mentions Zucker by name, but refers to him as the CEO of CNN, which is a non-existent position. You'd think that someone so highly placed on CNN's editorial board would know that there is a CEO of Time-Warner, but a President of CNN.  Maybe a small point, but a true insider should not misspeak like that.  Secondly, even if we allow him that, he is reporting a second hand conversation, supposedly quoting his boss as to something the "CEO" said.  But probably the best argument is that if CNN's ratings are high when they cover the Russia story, it is because a lot of Americans are interested in it.  If everyone thought it was "fake news" they would tune out.  Instead we are glued to our sets, because this is BIG, really BIG NEWS.  The more Trump denies it, but at the same time tries to deflect, like by blaming Obama, the more interesting it becomes.  This story is not fading anytime soon, and that has nothing to do with the media favoring coverage of it.  There is a special counsel and at least three congressional committees (led by Republicans) looking into it. Some two-bit conservative whacko surreptitiously recording CNN producers who have nothing to do with politics news isn't going to stop that.

First, mhorndisk, stop imitating Frederick and replying to your own posts.  It is bad form. Second, Frederick, 77 year-old men harass women by suggesting that sleeping with him will advance their career, as Alles did with Allisyn Cammerota.  And, third, not to piss on your parade, CNN has stood by its employee.  He is not involved in political reporting at all ( his a CNN Health producer) and his opinions are his own..  As quoted in USA Today. "The news network issued a statement Tuesday afternoon standing by its employee and noting he is not involved in coverage of Trump or the Russia investigation. “CNN stands by our medical producer John Bonifield. Diversity of personal opinion is what makes CNN strong, we welcome it and embrace it,” the statement said.

Also, Project Veritas is being sued for violating wiretapping laws.

Contrary to what you guys think, liberals do not insistent that everyone march in lockstep.  In a corporation as big as CNN, there is bound to be some dissenting opinions.  This producer's ideas do not affect CNN's political editorial content.  Calm Down!

I think Obama acted in the last month of his term because e knew Trump wouldn't, and wanted to send a message to Russia for the good of the country.  It appears that Michael Flynn's efforts to reassure the Russians about these sanctions and his subsequent lies about it to the VP and FBI are what got him into trouble.  And what's with Jared wanting to use the Russian embassy to communicate with the Kremlin?  And Trump's refusal to criticize Putin when he throws all of our other allies under the bus?  There's a lot of fishiness in this administration when it comes to all things Russia.

Let's be clear.  SCOTUS has not yet ruled on the merits of the case.The 9-0 ruling hear the case on its merits in October.In the meantime, they allowed the ban to go into place, but only for those foreigners who do not have a direct relationship with an American resident or institution. Whjile this is clearly a partial victory for the administration, it would be premature to celebrate complete victory.

@raphjd:

I hope you know that you proved Godwin's law.

Touche

The public does not know the whole story, whatever it is. Latest reporting, which is based on anonymous sources claims that the Obama White House knew about Russia hacking the DNC before the election, but did not become aware of any possible collusion with the Trump campaign until December of 2016, a full month after the election.
We are not trying to litigate the election.  Trump won fair and square.  This is about preventing interference in future elections.
I sincerely hope that Trump and his campaign are exonerated.  The thought that any American citizen would collaborate with foreign nation to affect our elections is so despicable  that it truly threatens our democratic process.  For that reason, it needs to be investigated thoroughly, not to undermine President Trump's legitimacy.

It is true that as of early May, the FBI was not investigating Trump himself for collusion with Russia.  That does not exclude his campaign or advisers, and does not exclude any evidence that may be forthcoming as the investigation proceeds.
If he is so unconcerned about the collusion allegations, why is he going after Obama using that word?  If anything, Obama was too cautious in exposing Russian meddling in our election, but collusion?  C'mon!