Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - zheega

Pages: [1]
The politics / Re: Brazil just elected a fascist
« on: October 29, 2018, 05:12:31 AM »
RIP Amazon rainforest

I understand 'Corporate' Crowley immediately endorsed 'Socialist Democrat' Ocasio-Cortez.  Apparently, she is a shoe-in (now) to be elected in this very D district. At 28, she may be the youngest member in the new House of Representatives.  (There have been younger ones.)

What else can Crowley do? The district is +25 Dem leaning, he can't not endorse her when he knows it is 99% likely she will win. And Crowley definitely plans to run for something else soon.

If he's Chair, can he not still give a personal endorsement of a personal friend?  Answer:  it's still unethical.

Not "still unethical". The fact that they are personal friends makes it even worse!!

Complaining about rigged systems and choices of the lesser of two evils is pointless – after the vote, either legalization wins and Hillary Clinton is president, or prohibition wins and Donald Trump is president. Either you chose to move the country incrementally forward on marijuana and progressivism, or you chose to move the country backward.

9 states had ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana on Nov 8, 2016. Out of 9 states, 9 passed it, among those a few Clinton herself LOST. Maybe she should be in favor of legalizing marijuana to get those voters and win states like Florida?

Barack Obama to young people in 2016 and 2017: “If you're disappointed by your elected officials, grab a clip board, get some signatures, and run for office yourself.”
Barack Obama 2018: Endorses millionaire Dianne Feinstein (84) against her grassroots funded primary opponent Alison Hartson (37)

Hillary Clinton in 2016 and 2017: "get more women to run for office and vote in midterm elections" and "there is a special place in hell for women who don't support other women"
Hillary Clinton in 2018: Endorses male incumbent Andrew Cuomo against his grassroots funded primary opponent Cynthia Nixon.

This is the most classic example of corporate Democrats. "Inspirational" rhetoric and "feel-good" speeches, while doing the exact opposite themselves. Just like all that rhetoric of "just get us in office in 2008 and we will support unions, bail out Main Street not Wall Street and pass a public option for healthcare" in 2008 that never materialized. Then Democrats turned around and blamed their own voters (who just overwhelmingly elected them in 2008) for bad 2010 midterm results.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 16, 2018, 07:50:50 PM »
Where is the outrage over Haspel's appointment? Where is the resistance?
They will confirm her if she promises to be even more hawkish. The same for every new Trump appointee.

Here is a good video explaining how the bank bill mostly serves the purpose of deregulating big banks -

Even the CBO predicts this bank bill will cost money -> not because it directly provides any funding or decreases taxes, but because it increases the chances for another bailout and increases the potential size of a bailout.

Exactly. Plus, the Dems should not join the GOP-Kochtopus-Breitbart chorus of vilifying Obama and Hillary.
Dems should stop ignoring big policy problems with Obama and Hillary. Especially money in politics and foreign policy.

Just responding with "nananana" to honest and accurate criticism of your own party will only lead to more losses.

Dems should not join the GOP-Kochtopus-Breitbart chorus when it comes to fake scandals like Benghazi and Obama's birth certificate etc.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 12, 2018, 02:50:09 AM »
Trump ups the ante: will tax EU cars if EU retaliates for steel,aluminum tariffs:

I'm betting he doesn't know those EU car makers are producing their cars mostly in states that Trump won.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 11, 2018, 07:26:31 PM »
Re steel tariffs, expert opinion says China will benefit. It doesn't sell much steel to the US, but it will sell its steel to the rest of the world, cutting into our markets.

Not likely. EU steel and iron tariffs on China's exports are still in effect and have been extended for at least another year. It is unlikely that EU will remove them anytime soon. It is more likely that other western countries (like Canada) will also impose steel and iron tariffs on China, following EU and US examples.

Those 12 'Democrats'


The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 10, 2018, 03:13:30 AM »
China hasn't reacted to EU steel and iron tariffs at all, but it is possible that they will react to Trump's steel tariffs. This could get interesting...

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: March 10, 2018, 03:11:56 AM »
It’s 2018 and they’re bravely switching to *gas* to save the climate? That’s a bit of a reach.
Hey, they're the company that improved their sales more than any other company after the Dieselgate scandal. They were also the most responsible for the Dieselgate scandal, of course. What do they care?

Which is why you need the whip to enforce partyline votes. And back it up with penalties. And that is exactly what Pelosi and Schumer will never do.

Yesterday Schumer made a speech in the Senate. It was classic anti-Republican grandstanding. He didn't even mention this bill, even tho it rolls back much of Dodd-Frank. I thought Democrats care a lot about Obama's legacy?

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: March 02, 2018, 01:47:25 AM »
Google/Facebook/Twitter changes hit independent media specifically hard. There is no reason to believe that every next change will be focused on crushing non-corporate media.

"Editorial: Google's Threat to Democracy Hits AlterNet Hard"

In June, Google announced major changes in its algorithm designed to combat fake news. Ben Gomes, the company’s vice president for engineering, stated in April that Google’s update of its search engine would block access to “offensive" sites, while working to surface more “authoritative content.”

This seemed like a good idea. Fighting fake news, which Trump often uses to advance his interests and rally his supporters, is an important goal that AlterNet shares.

But little did we know that Google had decided, perhaps with bad advice or wrong-headed thinking, that media like AlterNet—dedicated to fighting white supremacy, misogyny, racism, Donald Trump, and fake news—would be clobbered by Google in its clumsy attempt to address hate speech and fake news.

The politics / Re: US intervention in foreign lands
« on: March 02, 2018, 01:45:50 AM »
It is different! US uses nice Christian bombs, that don't kill civilians. Also, US supports dictators who only dictate love and hugging. It is totally different.

Slave markets in Libya sell only Muslim slaves, so who cares that Libya had the longest life expectancy before we destroyed it, right?

Sam Harris is an idiot.

The politics / Re: US intervention in foreign lands
« on: March 02, 2018, 12:50:41 AM »
Is it different when the US does it? Is it in fact good because it's for freedom and democracy?

A simple answer; "US Provides Military Assistance to 73 Percent of World's Dictatorships"

Current US foreign policy doesn't care about "freedom" and "democracy" at all. We are interfering in the Honduras elections RIGHT NOW.

Anyway, first let's start with current US wars. So far all of those are GW Bush and Obama wars, Trump hasn't started any new wars yet: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and ~20k troops in "undisclosed locations". Am I missing any countries?

One of those wars could be challenged soon - "Senators Bernie Sanders, Mike Lee, and Chris Murphy Invoke the War Powers Act to End US Involvement in Yemen"

DCCC (like the DNC, but for Democratic House members/candidates) has been up to some "good stuff" lately.

DCCC telling all its candidates to no talk about gun control policy after the Texas shooting, instead tells them to offer "thoughts and prayers". Basically copying NRA talking points;

DCCC telling its candidates to not run on healthcare-specific issues and giving them anti-single-payer talking points;

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: February 27, 2018, 06:15:40 PM »
I voted for Clinton. I'd vote for Trump if the election were held today.

Seems mostly a sad case of progressives attacking each other, again.

Yes, either that, or the DCCC isn't neutral and goes out of its way to shut out and obstruct people who don't play by their rules (pay their consultants, play nice for the sake of 'unity', don't push for signature liberal causes as universal healthcare, the $15 minimum wage, campaign finance reform, tuition-free higher education, battling climate change, fighting the MIC, or reining in Wall Street etc). One of the two, just like with the DNC.

And their talking points are stupid. One of the "reasons" why DCCC is against her is that she only recently moved back to her district. But in 2016 they threw millions of $$$ to Jon Ossoff, who NEVER lived in the district where he was running - not even during the elections.

The politics / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: February 25, 2018, 09:37:44 PM »
Gates and Buffet are BOTH known for thinking the economic disparity is far too high....and the wealthy should pay a much higher rate.

And there is also no need to raise the max marginal rates. Just kill all the loopholes and bring back all the untaxed money from tax havens.

US has declared many stupid wars, why not just declare a war on tax havens? I doubt Virgin Islands have much of a military. Domestic tax havens (such as Delaware) and UK's tax havens can be dealt with through legislation.

There is predicted to be ~$30 trillion hidden in tax havens. Tax all money in tax havens at 50% if obtained legally, at 100% if the owner can't prove that it was obtained legally. Distribute it between the countries where those people are from.

Problem solved.

After talking about "unity" and sending all candidates contracts mandating that they are not allowed to attack their primary opponents and must hold "unity rallies" after the primary.

Interestingly, PACs and Super-PACs are still allowed to attack anyone they want during the primary, so this DCCC policy insanely helps everyone who has a PAC or Super-PAC.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: February 24, 2018, 12:26:40 AM »
Crazy idiot alert

“If the sanctions don’t work, we’ll have to go to Phase 2,” Trump replied. “Phase 2 may be a very rough thing. May be very, very unfortunate for the world.”

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: February 23, 2018, 10:37:03 PM »
I think Democrats will easily win "the popular vote", but have the same problems they've been having recently (last ~20 years). They will win with big margins in big cities, but narrowly lose lots of rural districts. They should still win the House IMO. Winning the Senate will be much harder because many more Dem incumbents are up for reelection in 2018. 2016 was supposed to be the year when the Dems take back the Senate.

The problem is that the Democrats are still favoring corporate-friendly primary candidates. And while having lots of money might help you win against a progressive Dem primary opponent, it will depress the turnout in the general elections. It seems like the Democrats are just hoping that the "blue wave" will be big enough that they can nominate a dead cat and still win against the Republicans.

While it doesn't track the dynamics behind each bill, 538 does have a tracker that shows how often a representative votes in line with Trump's stance on a policy normalized against how well Trump did in that representative's district

This is an interesting tool, but it should be noted that national attention in politics has increased a lot since Trump won. And voting with Trump as a Democrat is much harder than it was when Bush was president for example. Remember all the heat Booker got when he voted against importing cheaper drugs from Canada. He probably had no idea anyone was paying attention.

With long-time incumbents such as Feinstein we can look at their entire history tho. And it is not very good.

Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: February 23, 2018, 03:06:46 AM »
I think there is simply no way for even worst-case climate change scenarios to cause the direct extinction of the human race.

The problem is that deteriorating conditions caused by CC will probably start big wars for resources and for survival of entire countries, if not continents. And if we use nuclear weapons in those wars, we could cause the extinction of the human race. So getting rid of nuclear weapons should be a priority. Just India and Pakistan alone probably have enough nukes to end the human race.

I would have hoped that you would have found something in Feinstein's voting record that resembles an obvious sell-out to corporate America. Something like the Keystone XL.
The Keystone XL is so obviously a "corporate" decision that I use it as a litmus test for "corporate" politicians.
Feinstein voted for GW Bush tax cuts... Something very similar to Trump tax cuts. She voted for the Patriot Act. She voted for all NSA surveillance bills I can remember. She supports the freaking death penalty.

She has been a big fighter against marijuana legalization;

Feinstein’s opposition was hardly a surprise. For decades, the San Francisco Democrat has opposed nearly all forms of drug reform, from medical marijuana in the 1990s to California’s adult use measure in 2016. In recent years she’s been a key ally of Iowa’s Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, the two elder senators working together to block Congressional measures aimed at drug reform in the age of medical and adult-use legalization.

In 2015, the Feinstein-Grassley tandem warned that America was losing its will on drug enforcement as new states legalized cannabis for recreational or medical use. “We’re already seeing signs that the United States’ position on drug control issues is weakening,” Feinstein and Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Attorney General Eric Holder

Pipelines seem to be one of the few good points for Feinstein tho. But I think all of her primary opponents are against those pipelines anyway, so we wouldn't be giving anything up if she lost against one of the progressive challengers.

The politics / Re: Russiagate
« on: February 23, 2018, 02:33:57 AM »
Fursan al Haqq and Suqour Al-Jabal is not Al Nusra

I didn't say they are. Those are other various extremists. Some results of backing those extremists were less funny -

About US helping Al Qaeda in Syria:

He-who-must-not-be-named won the electoral college. Anyone who helped, knowingly or not, shares the blame.

I know Trump won the electoral college. Do you have any data that this social media troll farm actually helped him do that? Other than saying "it is unquantifiable"?

Nope. I would expect Sanders and desillusioned democrats to stay at home on election date. Political party affiliation is stronger than even religious belief.

So how many did stay home because of a Twitter meme uploaded by Russians? How many stayed home for totally unrelated reasons, like Obamacare premiums going up ~20% 2 weeks before the election? How do we quantify this?

This is some classic "corporate Democrating" right here -

It was those types of activists EMILY’s List spent 2017 encouraging to make first-time bids for office. But that doesn’t mean EMILY’s List will get behind them. Also running is Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, a corporate lawyer who is backed by Houston mega-donor Sherry Merfish. EMILY’s List endorsed her in November.

With both Fletcher and Moser battling for a spot in the two-person runoff, and Westin surging in the race, EMILY’s List’s endorsement of Fletcher could end up having the paradoxical effect of producing a runoff between the two men. EMILY’s List, while expending resources in several competitive primaries between women, has also stayed out of other races that pit a pro-choice woman against an anti-choice man. Despite significant pressure, the group held out on endorsing Marie Newman against Democratic incumbent Daniel Lipinski, only shifting course when it became clear the SEIU would be breaking with Lipinski.

The group has also declined to endorse the pro-choice Kara Eastman running against anti-choice Democrat Brad Ashford; the same is true for Lupe Valdez running against Andrew White for Texas governor. (White says that he believes Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that his religious beliefs would not influence how he approached the issue, but he is far from a champion of reproductive rights.)

The support of first Merfish and then EMILY’s List for Fletcher raises questions about whether the endorsement was made at the behest of a major donor or because the organization truly believed Fletcher is the stronger candidate.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: February 22, 2018, 05:23:49 PM »
Others will not wake up and go bust.

I doubt it. US and Canada have been RAPIDLY increasing fossil fuel production over the last ~10 years (US fossil fuel production increased faster over the last 8 years than in any other country in world history) and fossil fuel subsidies have not decreased. I think oil corporations will be able to hold their own for a loooong time, because they have the backing of some of the strongest governments on the planet.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: February 22, 2018, 05:21:30 PM »
What are the chances that the summer melting season will be slower than in other years? I know last year ~2 months of above-average cloud cover decreased melting by a lot.

The politics / Re: Russiagate
« on: February 22, 2018, 05:17:08 PM »
You don't. It is binary. They either did it or didn't.  How effective they were is irrelevant.

How do you call something that you can't quantify as "election interference"? Why not call it by its proper name - "unquantifiable attempts at social media propaganda"? Election interference has a proper definition. For example what foreign countries (US) are doing in Honduras or what foreign countries (Russia) are doing in Ukraine IS election interference or worse.

Not for independent people, but yes to acting on behalf of foreign government sponsored organizations and for people pretending to be american citizens.

1st Amendment applies to all people, even non-US citizens. How would you implement this social media censorship by not violating the 1st Amendment?

Was this properly disclosed and used the proper channels or did  they pretend to be American?

I've never heard CAP representatives on CNN, MSNBC, Bill Maher or anywhere else disclose that they receive funding from foreign dictatorships. Usually they were presented as "Clinton surrogates" and not "CAP employee".

That depends on how good the meme is and how receptive people are to it. Quantifying it is impossible with current technology, but thats beside the point. The point is that they did it and it worked.

So it is unquantifiable, but you know that it worked?

The point wasn't to get votes against Clinton and for Trump. That will be highly innefective. Partisans wouldn't vote for another party even if their god told them to. The point was to discourage people from voting at all.

Wouldn't you expect at least a similar % of Sanders primary voters to vote for Trump as the % of Clinton primary voters to vote for McCain in 2008? All the data that we do have (and general election exit polls have a MOE of less than 3%) doesn't show that any "foreign influence" worked. Is there new data that we might get in the future? Yes, then I will be forced to change my view.

Anyway why do a poster with 3 posts keep asking  to quantify things everyone knows are unquantifiable?

Is there a rule saying new accounts shouldn't try to quantify things and talk about real, provable numbers? Link?

The politics / Re: Russiagate
« on: February 22, 2018, 04:57:42 PM »
Money, arms, and assistance in many forms has come from Iran, Saudi Arabia, ably assisted by Russia, the USA, the UK et al. It makes me want to puke.

Syria has changed quite a lot. In the past it was just a proxy-war. US backed Al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and various other extremist militias, sometimes with funny results -

Saudi Arabia backed ISIS. Both US and SA did this to overthrow Assad. Then Russia and Iran came to help Assad against both ISIS and Al Qaeda. Now those proxy forces have mostly lost.

So now the big powers are getting involved directly. It is a big mess.

USA and the Kurds have stated that they will permanently occupy the oil-rich north of Syria ( Meanwhile Turkey (ally of US) is attacking the Kurds (ally of US). Israel is bombing Assad forces. Assad is allied with Russia (and some support from Iran) fighting against Al Nusra and ISIS (what is left of them), Israel and US/Kurd forces, while proposing an alliance with the Kurds - saying that US isn't protecting them from Turkey and that Assad will.

Meanwhile, a quiet alliance is being formed between Israel and Saudi Arabia, mainly targeting Syria and Iran.

This might get a lot worse before it gets better.

the account amassed at least 136,000 followers. Its tweets often racked up thousands of retweets, sometimes even from top Trump campaign staffers.

So how many Trump votes did this account (with 136k followers) get for Trump in November of 2016? What if all of those 136k followers were #MAGA folks already? What if 100k of those followers were from California and not from a swing state?

How many votes did some other pro-Clinton tweet from JK Rowling (UK citizen who has MILLIONS of followers on Twitter) get Clinton in November of 2016?

To trigger Trump voters: She is female, black, and not stupid. I.e. worse than Hillary, who is white.

To make sure those Twitter accounts would lose #MAGA followers? I can guarantee you that when I receive a #MAGA follower on Twitter because I criticize Chuck Schumer, I lose the same follower 5 minutes later when I retweet Michael Moore, Bernie Sanders or Noam Chomsky.

zheega, I herewith declare you a Russian asset, if not troll, and will ignore your comments.

You ignored half of my questions in this would-be-debate, claimed that posts on Facebook and Twitter are somehow "election interference", don't want to address questions about the same "election interference" (as defined by you) from UAE that was pro-Clinton and now you just want to quit. Ignoring my comments might be the best solution for you...

The trolls also amplified Black Lives Matter.

Oh yes. I see a lot of people now saying "BLM were Russian puppets" because some Twitter and Facebook accounts shared a few of their posts.

I also see a lot of people wanting to start censoring social media. Yet those same people are anti-Trump, but want to give Trump anti-1st Amendment powers.

If he didn't vote this way, he'd lose to a Republican in the next election, and that's far worse than having a disappointing D.  His votes on these matters haven't made any difference at all on actual outcomes.  His voting for these is a strategic advantage for progressives, with little, if any, actual downside.

The problem is that he might lose anyway. When Republicans and rep-leaning independents have to choose between a slightly pro-Trump Democrat Manchin and a very pro-Trump Republican (whoever that will be), almost all of them will vote for a Republican. Democrats and dem-leaning independents might stay home in large enough numbers for Manchin to lose.

People do argue that the specifics of 2018 (a big anti-Trump blue wave) might still energize the Dem base and allow Manchin to win anyway. But if 2018 is a big blue wave anyway - why not get a progressive in there? Once the Democrats have a majority (or even a super-majority that they held in 2010 for a few months) they might again disappoint their base like they did in 2009/2010 when they won on a progressive "hope&change" agenda, then passed Romneycare and allowed Wall Street to (literally) get away with murder.

Obama even implemented a program that helped banks foreclose on homeowners. I wonder why Democrats got destroyed in 2010 midterms. I can't quite tell...

The politics / Re: Russiagate
« on: February 22, 2018, 04:14:25 PM »
Yep, very easily. All you need is a powerful message applied to people already primed to receive the message. Once the idea is accepted it spreads on its own, like an infectious disease.

And how do you measure what impact the $1mio Russian operation had? And how do you compare it to everything else?

The solution is already in place. It needs to be illegal for foreign countries, corporations or individuals to perform propaganda campaigns or political donations,  specially in light of Citizens United.

Repealing CU wouldn't solve this in any way. There is no law (except in countries like Saudi Arabia and China for example) that would prevent people posting memes to Twitter and Facebook. You would have to repeal the 1st Amendment for such a law to be constitutional. And would you really trust enforcement of such a law to Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump?

And? Maybe if Trump won by a landslide you could argue that foreign influences had no meaningful effect. Given that Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin that argument becomes very weak.

First, how do you measure how much "foreign influence" helped? Also, if you are against foreign influence - CAP (Center For American Progress) was one of the biggest Clinton backers in 2015/2016 (their representatives received significant air time on CNN and MSNBC), yet CAP receives $1mio every year from United Arab Emirates. Is that foreign influence from UAE and how do you measure it?

Remember, we are not talking about election interference here - if Russians hacked the voting machines, then it would be incredibly easy to find out how they influenced the election. But how many votes does a Facebook meme get you?

Providing memes, dirt (fake or real), and systematic online support like retweets, likes and upvotes.  This helped cement anti-clinton ideas in preparation for the general elections.

Yes, they did provide memes. But why didn't it work? Why did ~90% Sanders primary supporters vote for Clinton ANYWAY, while in 2008 only ~80% of Clinton primary supporters voted for Obama? Wouldn't it be the other way around if the Russian propaganda worked? Or did the Russian propaganda even backfire, since 2016 seems to be a stand-out year (in a positive way) for how many primary voters of Sanders (her only real primary opponent) voted for Clinton in the general election?

And why did this "amazing Russian propaganda" give more exposure to Tweets of Joy Ann Reid (who HATES TRUMP and doesn't like Sanders) from MSNBC than Sanders or Jill Stein?

If you don't believe me - here is the raw info:

RT @JoyAnnReid: 267
RT @realDonaldTrump: 578
RT @SenSanders: 27

The politics / Re: Russiagate
« on: February 22, 2018, 03:15:38 PM »
The point of the Russian trolls is not to convince everyone. They plant seed ideas into vulnerable populations. Once vulnerable local populations assimilate the idea, the idea spreads and evolves under the protection of free speech. Well crafted ideas in vulnerable populationd spread  like virus.

Ah, yes. A $1mio Russian operation managed to dupe the "vulnerable" US voters. So what is the solution to this? "Protecting" the population from certain information in the future? And how would the government enforce this? And what if the Republicans somehow managed to get control of the government - do you really trust them with anti-1st Amendment powers? I wouldn't!

Just to remind you, Trump + Clinton spent over $2 billion targeting the same people that the Russians targeted. Even if the Russians were incredibly effective with their "Jesus loves Trump and hates Hillary" memes and got a 10x better return on investment, that is still less than Clinton spent in a few days!!

Using Stein and Sanders followers was an obvious play. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Greens and Sanders voters helped amplify the message against Hillary Clinton, and  that obviously favored Trump.

How were they "using" Stein and Sanders followers? Looking at exit polls, around ~90% of Sanders primary voters voted for Hillary and around ~10% voted for everyone else combined. For comparison, in 2008 around ~20% of Clinton voters voted for John McCain (and another ~5% voted 3rd party). Was the "Russian operation" even better in 2008 and was it helping Obama? If there was no "Russian operation" in 2008, then it seems their "using of Sanders followers" backfired spectacularly in 2016.

The politics / Re: Russiagate
« on: February 22, 2018, 02:04:24 AM »
Anyone saying that Twitter and Facebook posts (however well organized and world-class mastermindy those posts might have been) of a ~$1mio operation is somehow "election interference" is just plain wrong and is doing a BIG disservice to actual election interference.

Just one Super-PAC spent $1mio on Facebook and Twitter posts in just a few months, for comparison -

If there is evidence of actual election interference I will change my view. What would that evidence be?

For example, hacking of voting machines and changing the votes. Or hacking the voter rolls and removing voters from voter rolls. Or what the US has been doing in Honduras or Iraq for example. Or what Russia is doing in Ukraine for example.

Pages: [1]