Page 211 of 213

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:09 am UTC
by sardia
Thesh wrote:Plenty of awareness, zero integrity.

Be more power conscious, and call it even. For example, if you really wanted to settle scores, go after Kentucky's federal funding when Democrats are back in power. Raise regulations and taxes on his state. Or you know, move on.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:21 am UTC
by Thesh
???

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:03 am UTC
by Sableagle
Vahir wrote:Mitch McConnell Says Voters Won’t Tolerate the Obstruction of Supreme Court Nominees

I wish I felt surprise. It's just rage instead.

This is how compromise and reaching out to the opposition ends? Where's Justice? Where's Karma?

mathfreak wrote:Today I learned that being good to some people won't guarantee that they'll be good to you too.
It's a bad day so far.


For "compromise and reaching out to the opposition," read: "letting the bullies have their own way."

Parents say: "Just ignore them. They'll get bored and go away." It's a lie. Take that to mean: "Go away, kid. I don't give a fuck." It might not be true but you'd better accept that anyone who responds with that line is going to be absolutely zero help. Teachers say they have a zero-tolerance policy to bullying. It's words on paper. You can go 30 years with the people who ought to be protecting you telling you it's "just a bit of light-hearted banter." If you want the bullies to stop, knock their damned teeth out. Smash a barstool over someone's head, grab one by the throat in the swimming pool, drag him down and hold him down until you're dragged away. Make 'em SCARED of you. The sooner you rebel against the attempts to condition you to be a victim all your life the better your chances of having a life.

How does that translate to this election? They're 50-80 years old but they're still the same arseholes and they're still going to bugger the juniors in the locker room until better people disguise fair nature with hard-favoured rage.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:20 pm UTC
by sardia
That's a very Trumpian response, simple violent solutions that don't really work/have serious consequences. I've been thinking how often the world would be so much simpler if we just did X. Those kinds of thoughts come up often, and they are very seductive. I can see why Trump is so popular with his base.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:26 pm UTC
by Mutex
But if the dems want to get elected, they do actually probably need to get more populist. Complex, nuanced solutions only really appeal to (college) educated voters, which as we've seen, aren't enough. The trick is to sell solutions which the majority of people can understand and like, but which aren't just unworkable nonsense which don't even address the actual problem, so you're not committed to doing something insane when you get power.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:39 pm UTC
by Thesh
Mutex wrote:But if the dems want to get elected, they do actually probably need to get more populist. Complex, nuanced solutions only really appeal to (college) educated voters, which as we've seen, aren't enough. The trick is to sell solutions which the majority of people can understand and like, but which aren't just unworkable nonsense which don't even address the actual problem, so you're not committed to doing something insane when you get power.


AKA Market Socialism. :D

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:46 pm UTC
by sardia
Mutex wrote:But if the dems want to get elected, they do actually probably need to get more populist. Complex, nuanced solutions only really appeal to (college) educated voters, which as we've seen, aren't enough. The trick is to sell solutions which the majority of people can understand and like, but which aren't just unworkable nonsense which don't even address the actual problem, so you're not committed to doing something insane when you get power.

Why not do what Trump does, sell whatever the hell THEY want, but quietly do what YOU want when you get into power. It'll take a couple years before the voters realized they've been lied to. Then another white knight comes in, and offers to save them from the last guy. * Voters will only realize that something is off when the symbolism and propaganda can't stem the bad news. The economy, and by extension politics, is complicated.

*Assuming this isn't a golden age of Conservatism(25% chance the next 12 years are GOPled) where Democrats lose the Midwest while they still aren't strong enough to take the South.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:43 pm UTC
by Mutex
Because chances are they'll only believe the next white knight when they come from the other party, hence the pendulum swinging between the parties. If you want power for more than one term you either need really, really good propaganda or solutions that actually work. But you won't get a chance to try your super-duper solutions if you don't get power because no-one outside academics likes the sound of them.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:54 pm UTC
by Dauric
Of course the other problem is typically benefits/detriments from policies put in place don't get felt until 4-8 years after they get passed. In this last election some conservatives were saddling Obama with the recession as though the banking crisis of '08 didn't happen under Bush II (R)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:00 pm UTC
by Thesh
Dauric wrote:In this last election some conservatives were saddling Obama with the recession as though the banking crisis of '08 didn't happen under Bush II (R)

Some? Look, it's propaganda, plain and simple. That was the agreed upon narrative, pushed by pretty much every Republican in the country for the sole purpose of misinforming the public so they could regain power.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:01 pm UTC
by sardia
Dauric wrote:Of course the other problem is typically benefits/detriments from policies put in place don't get felt until 4-8 years after they get passed. In this last election some conservatives were saddling Obama with the recession as though the banking crisis of '08 didn't happen under Bush II (R)

Either adapt to the times, or run with a secret agenda to mandate voting. Yes, we know that's a problem. What do we do now? Appeal to white people, the same plan we always go back to.
I'm intrigued by the focus on local politics, it should pay dividends.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:34 pm UTC
by Liri
Roy Cooper is making some pretty great Cabinet selections. Especially his state EPA pick. AND, the legislature was denied their request to postpone holding another round of elections this year in hopefully-less-gerrymandered districts. It's looking possible that Democrats could retake the state legislature, but probably still a long shot.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:10 pm UTC
by elasto
Trump has also consistently spoken favourably of Putin and urged a closer relationship with Russia.

On Saturday, he added: “Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only ‘stupid’ people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We have enough problems around the world without yet another one.

Assuming he's right, it's odd that he seeks to bait China at every turn. Maybe consistency isn't his strong suit.

'Also', 'not' 'sure' 'why' 'he's' 'putting' 'stupid' 'in' 'quotes'?

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:30 pm UTC
by Mutex
But not fools. You're right, consistency isn't his strong suit.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:25 am UTC
by addams
Gwydion wrote:
sardia wrote:SurveyMonkey shows that the registered voters who stayed home were a tad more Democratic than usual. Or at least that's what I think that means. Either way, Democratic voters aren't blameless here. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/reg ... -election/
Part of me is annoyed by this analysis, because when the margins are so tight, anything could cost Clinton the election. What it doesn't say is if the turnout was lower than usual or if it's compared against Obama's unusually high margins.

It also doesn't say where that differential comes from - if most of the Dem voters who stayed home live in California or New York, then it's meaningless, but if they live in the Rust Belt (or Texas!) it could have been a big deal.
Yes. It would have been a Big Deal.
Orange Man promised to throw a World Class Temper Tantrum if he lost.

We would have had Violence in Our Streets.
Americans opening fire on Americans.
With Orange H****r egging on the least honorable of our people.

Analyzing the details seems to be an entertaining pass-time in this Thread.
And; Good on You.

No one Posting here believes there would have been a Peaceful Transition.
If Mrs. Clinton had won. Do you? Really? In your Heart of Hearts...?

Every Poster here Knows Orange H****** and his Barnum and Bailey Team
would have gleefully torn this Nation into Murderous Factions. Right?

Now; Back to our regularly scheduled analysis.

edit:I can not read this Thread nor watch The News,
It is too upsetting.

I am one of Many!
Many bright educated people are 'Checking Out'.

The mean Spirited, Profoundly UnderEducated are engaged with our national politics
in the very same way they engaged with Orange H****r's Reality Programs and Rush Limbaugh.

I know, I feel helpless when I find myself in conversation with people that struggle with 8th grade concepts.
Yet; These people are Confident! They are absolutely Sure they KNOW what is going on a world away.

These are Geographically retarded individuals.
They know Who to Hate. That satisfies them.

Voters?
We have what we were warned would happen,
if The Common Man gained Power.

excuse me.
I have not One positive sugesstion.

well....One...You will All Hate It.

To vote not only must a person have a photo ID,
But also a passing score on a Standardized Test,

Voting would become an earned privilege.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:55 am UTC
by ucim
addams wrote:...But also a passing score on a Standardized Test,
Who grades the test?

Jose

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:01 am UTC
by commodorejohn
ucim wrote:
addams wrote:...But also a passing score on a Standardized Test,
Who grades the test?

Someone who agrees with my views, obviously!

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:23 am UTC
by duckshirt
ucim wrote:
addams wrote:...But also a passing score on a Standardized Test,
Who grades the test?

Jose

What's wrong with a basic civics test (multiple choice, graded by a machine)? Nothing good comes from people voting who don't understand how the government works.

Best counterargument in my mind is that people are happier with their government if they feel their voice is heard even if most of it is 'noise.'

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:03 am UTC
by sardia
duckshirt wrote:
ucim wrote:
addams wrote:...But also a passing score on a Standardized Test,
Who grades the test?

Jose

What's wrong with a basic civics test (multiple choice, graded by a machine)? Nothing good comes from people voting who don't understand how the government works.

Best counterargument in my mind is that people are happier with their government if they feel their voice is heard even if most of it is 'noise.'

Usually voter disenfranchisement.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:15 am UTC
by commodorejohn
What's wrong with it is that it introduces waaayyy too much potential for whoever picks the questions to implement an ideological "purity test" of one stripe or another and block people who don't meet their standards from being able to vote in (what would be) a completely legal fashion.

And of course proponents will say "oh, no, see, it's just going to be basic objective stuff," but let's not kid ourselves. If you give a select group of people the means to be corrupt and screw over the people they don't like and get away with it, that's going to happen eventually.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:11 pm UTC
by Liri
Yeah, the number of times written tests have been used to fuck people over doesn't inspire me with confidence that this time we'll get it right.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:46 pm UTC
by addams
Let's discuss this Test.
It would Not be a Secret Test.

We each take a test before we are allowed to drive.
Why not take a test before being allowed to Vote?

Who writes the Test?
Crap!! I don't know!

How about ...Harvard Law?
Standardized: Nation Wide.

I like The System in my state.
We do Mail In Ballots.

And; I saw with my own little eyes, an old woman;
She is 86 years old, with a younger woman 'Helping' her vote.

It was Sweet.
And; It was Creepy.

Barb looked up at Sue and said,
"Who do we 'like?' Sue Knew!

I like Mail in, because once upon a Time we had Voting Parties.
We were all University Educated folks.

We read and discussed convoluted ballot measures.
It was Fun!

Why not make voting an earned privilege.
Voting can be done at Parties,

Those tests will be done the way the DMV works.
Each Man and Woman must face the questions, alone.

1. Can you read?
If not; Why not?
Do you need special help?

2. Do you have critical thinking skills?
If not; The local Community College has classes.

oh...And; Kill the Electoral College and Trump University.

On a more serious note:
It is possible to have fair Tests.

Attorneys, Nurses, Doctors and both Plumbing and Electrical Contractors take Tests!

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:59 pm UTC
by Sableagle
addams wrote:We would have had Violence in Our Streets.
Americans opening fire on Americans.
With Orange H****r egging on the least honorable of our people.
You missed out at least three instances of the word "more" in there.

Spoiler:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/

Code: Select all

  1  El Salvador        93.09
  2  Guatemala          70.66
  3  Venezuela          47.04
  4  Trinidad/Tob.      43.38
  5  Belize             43.05
 83  India               5.75
 84  Lithuania           5.59
 85  United States       5.56
 86  Ghana               5.53
 87  Niger               5.51
168  Switzerland         0.57
169  Norway              0.56
170  Austria             0.50
171  Kuwait              0.30
172  Japan               0.28
Note for people keen to discuss the Second Amendment: Austria and Switzerland have a lot of civilian-owned firearms.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

2015
Total Number of Incidents 53,500
Number of Deaths1 13,474
Number of Injuries1 27,026
Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed or Injured1 697
Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed or Injured1 2,693
Mass Shooting2 333
Officer Involved Incident, Officer Shot or Killed2 319
Officer Involved Incident, Subject-Suspect Shot or Killed2 1,913
Home Invasion2 2,370
Defensive Use2 1,337
Accidental Shooting2 1,963

Gun violence and crime incidents are collected/validated from 2,000 sources daily – incidents and their source data are found at the gunviolencearchive.org website.

1: Actual number of deaths and injuries
2: Number of INCIDENTS reported and verified

22,000 Annual Suicides not included on Daily Summary Ledger

Numbers on this table reflect a subset of all information
collected and will not add to 100% of incidents.


www.gapminder.org/world/ aka Gapminder World, set to show murdered men per 100,000 people on the x axis and murdered women per 100,000 people on the y axis: 9.7 and 2.6 respectively in the USA
Outliers: South Africa 121, 23; Cote d'Ivoire 103, 18; Angola 85, 14; Jamaica 65, 12; Nauru 4.4, 20; Colombia 95, 8.2; Kiribati 13, 0

USA's nearest neighbours: Cuba 8.6, 2.47; Sao Tome and Principe 9.9, 2.94; Antigua and Barbuda 13, 2.55; Uruguay 6.6, 2.66

Lowest figures: San Marino 0, 0; UAE 0.61, 0.132; Tonga 1.1, 0.096; Fiji 1.3 0.089; Cook Islands 1.6, 0.082; Micronesia 1.5, 0.112; Ireland 0.96, 0.177; UK 0.8, 0.201
Maybe "even more" would be a better insertion than "more" for your statements.

Finally gunpolicy.org comes back up. More stats:

Spoiler:
In the United States, annual homicides by any means total:
2014: 15,809
2013: 16,121
2012: 16,688
2011: 16,238
2010: 16,259
2009: 16,799
2008: 17,826
2007: 18,361
2006: 18,573
2005: 18,124
2004: 17,357
2003: 17,732
2002: 17,638
2001: 20,308
2000: 16,765

In the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2014: 4.96
2013: 5.09
2012: 5.31
2011: 5.21
2010: 5.27
2009: 5.48
2008: 5.86
2007: 6.10
2006: 6.22
2005: 6.13
2004: 5.93
2003: 6.11
2002: 6.13
2001: 7.13
2000: 5.96

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2014: 3.43
2013: 3.54
2012: 3.70
2011: 3.55
2010: 3.59
2009: 3.75
2008: 4.01
2007: 4.19
2006: 4.29
2005: 4.18
2004: 3.97
2003: 4.11
2002: 4.11
2001: 3.98
2000: 3.84

In the United States, annual unintentional shooting deaths total

2014: 586
2013: 505
2012: 548
2011: 591
2010: 606
2009: 554
2008: 592
2007: 613
2006: 642
2005: 789
2004: 649
2003: 730
2002: 762
2001: 802
2000: 776

In the United States, annual legal-intervention gun homicides total

2013: 681
2012: 686
2011: 610
2010: 632
2009: 629
2008: 592
2007: 597
2006: 578
2005: 535
2004: 587
2003: 616
2002: 574
2001: 599
2000: 473

In the United States, the annual rate of justifiable gun homicide per 100,000 population is

2013: 0.22
2012: 0.22
2011: 0.20
2010: 0.20
2009: 0.21
2008: 0.19
2007: 0.20
2006: 0.19
2005: 0.18
2004: 0.20
2003: 0.21
2002: 0.20
2001: 0.21
2000: 0.17

In the United States, the annual number of non-fatal firearm injuries is

2013: 84,258
2012: 81,396
2011: 73,883
2010: 73,505
2009: 66,769
2008: 78,622
2007: 69,863
2006: 71,417
2005: 69,825
2004: 64,389
2003: 65,834
2002: 58,841
2001: 63,012

In the United States, the annual rate of non-fatal firearm injury per 100,000 population is

2013: 26.65
2012: 25.93
2011: 23.71
2010: 23.81
2009: 21.76
2008: 25.85
2007: 23.19
2006: 23.93
2005: 23.63
2004: 21.99
2003: 22.69
2002: 20.46
2001: 22.11


Derived from that, in the United States, annual not-legal-intervention gun homicides total

2013: 11,208 - 681 = 10,527
2012: 11,622 - 686 = 10,936
2011: 11,068 - 610 = 10,458
2010: 11,078 - 632 = 10,446
2009: 11,493 - 629 = 10,864
2008: 12,179 - 592 = 11,587
2007: 12,632 - 597 = 12,035
2006: 12,791 - 578 = 12,213
2005: 12,352 - 535 = 11,817
2004: 11,624 - 587 = 11,037
2003: 11,920 - 616 = 11,304
2002: 11,829 - 574 = 11,255
2001: 11,348 - 599 = 10,749
2000: 10,801 - 473 = 10,328

2000 to 2013 inclusive: 155556. Cynical note: 155mm howitzer, 5.56mm rifle bullet. Appropriate digits.

...



You'd need 173 hours and 45 minutes to read out those 155556. That's over a week without pausing.

The unintentionals since 9/11 outnumber 9/11 3 to 1.

Yeah, you missed out "more" there.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:38 pm UTC
by ucim
addams wrote:Who writes the Test?
Crap!! I don't know!

How about ...Harvard Law?
Standardized: Nation Wide.
That'd be good for cultured white folk. Who else needs to vote?

addams wrote:1. Can you read?
No, but I don't need to read. I know more about the military than all the generals combined, I'm smarter than all the scientists put together, and I already have my opinions, so I don't need any more facts.

addams wrote:2. Do you have critical thinking skills?
I think I can criticize anybody and get away with it. Heck, I can probably shoot somebody on fifth avenue and not lose any support. The rest of you folk are losers. How's that for critical?

addams wrote:On a more serious note:
It is possible to have fair Tests.

Attorneys, Nurses, Doctors and both Plumbing and Electrical Contractors take Tests!
Yes, but they are based on objective facts, not political ideology. And government is based on ideology. So, it's not really possible to devise a test that reflects what a "good citizen" needs to know in order to vote "properly", while remaining objective and still being effective at its given purpose.

It will be therefore subverted to a different purpose - that being, to promote the ideological agenda of the party in power.

Jose

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:14 am UTC
by duckshirt
ucim wrote:Yes, but they are based on objective facts, not political ideology. And government is based on ideology.

Civics is not based on political ideology. All voters should be able to describe the powers and limitations of the President, congress, judicial branch... or else their vote is just pollution.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:30 am UTC
by addams
duckshirt wrote:
ucim wrote:Yes, but they are based on objective facts, not political ideology. And government is based on ideology.

Civics is not based on political ideology. All voters should be able to describe the powers and limitations of the President, congress, judicial branch... or else their vote is just pollution.
Amen!
oh...There should be a tiny bit more than that;
But, not much.
Spoiler:
What do you think about some basic Logic?
Not; University Level Math Logic.
But; Some a+b=c stuff.
Spoiler:
Oh! Oh! There is a rumor.
It is a fairly well documented rumor:

Orang H. can't read.
The illiterate leading the illiterate is ok, I suppose.

But, Those persons that have mastered English Reading and Writing;
And, have command of a second and third language should not be degraded this way.

That's, just, my fucking opinion!

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:40 am UTC
by Lazar
duckshirt wrote:Civics is not based on political ideology.

Oh yes it is. You think things like rights-based ethics, human equality, the rule of law and popular sovereignty are not ideological propositions?

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:41 am UTC
by ucim
duckshirt wrote:Civics is not based on political ideology. All voters should be able to describe the powers and limitations of the President, congress, judicial branch... or else their vote is just pollution.
Well, much of civics is based on ideology - it's about "how to be a good citizen". It involves respect for the law, what you should do when {situation}, stuff like that. Not that it's not important, but some of it is most certainly not objective.

As to describing the powers and limitations... well, do you know them?

The answer is no.

There are things written down and revered, and I'm sure you know where to find them. You might even have those words memorized. It's important to at least know where to find those revered words, but they don't tell the whole story. The actual meaning of those words is the cause of several hundred years of political football that shows no signs of abating, and further, the most of the law isn't even in the statutes (the most prominent one being the Constitution). It's in case law. There's a lot of that, and even lawyers get to bill clients for "research" while they re-learn it themselves. (Semi-valid because it keeps changing). And that's to argue that their interpretation of the judge's interpretation of the constitution should prevail over the other person's interpretation of the judge's interpretation of the constitution.

And this isn't just for common infractions - it runs all the way up to the powers and limitations of the president, congress, the supreme court... so while I agree that it's important to be familiar with all of this, I do not in the least agree that an objective test for voting can be devised that is not political, and will not eventually (or quickly!) be modified into a political screening. The mere existence of such a test invites this.

Jose

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:29 pm UTC
by elasto
Can someone explain the Godwinning ref in Trump's latest tweet?

POTUS2B wrote:Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany?


And it's sad though predictable to contrast his reaction to leaks against his political opponents vs against himself :/

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:14 pm UTC
by sardia
If you follow his tweets, he's saying that it's a witch hunt. Makes sense if you follow his logic.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:26 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
sardia wrote:If you follow his tweets, he's saying that it's a witch hunt. Makes sense if you follow his logic.

But does he weigh the same as a duck?

Wait a minute... his name is Donald, and his hair is ->this<- close to being a Duck's Arse1, in the right strong breeze...

WITCH!!!.

1 As opposed to a horse's arse, which we know it's actually already sitting on top of...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:38 pm UTC
by reval
sardia wrote:Makes sense if you follow his logic.

What logic?

I'd be more worried about the "one last shot at me" business. Just how much effort is going to go into stamping out every trace of dissent? If we're lucky, this may be self-limiting. If we're less lucky, I don't know.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:09 pm UTC
by Chen
I really dislike the way our news media has to present these things so early so as not to a miss a scoop. This latest revelation could be the huge bombshell it's being made out to be. Or it could be completely nothing since the new reports/memos have yet to be substantiated.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:15 pm UTC
by sardia
reval wrote:
sardia wrote:Makes sense if you follow his logic.

What logic?

I'd be more worried about the "one last shot at me" business. Just how much effort is going to go into stamping out every trace of dissent? If we're lucky, this may be self-limiting. If we're less lucky, I don't know.

You're not aware of the full context. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/p ... gence.html
If anything in there is remotely true, Trump will be accused of Treason. This is highly unusual, and there's currently no evidence to back it up. This is why he considers it a witch hunt. Trump just won the biggest prize of his life, and an anonymous accuser is claiming it's all a sham with no evidence.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:38 pm UTC
by PeteP
You know if Russia has anything on Trump but not really enough to blackmail him properly they could show it now and cause some chaos, because as answer to "they really had compromising videos!" the answer "But I am shameless and that getting out wouldn't have lowered the opinions about me all that much" isn't the most convincing argument even if it is true.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:01 pm UTC
by sardia
PeteP wrote:You know if Russia has anything on Trump but not really enough to blackmail him properly they could show it now and cause some chaos, because as answer to "they really had compromising videos!" the answer "But I am shameless and that getting out wouldn't have lowered the opinions about me all that much" isn't the most convincing argument even if it is true.

Now there's an idea, piss off the one guy who wants to reverse sanctions on your country.

This alleged report doesn't sit well with me. Its disingenuous to report something that can't be confirmed. The only people involved are denying it. The only dumb thing is that Comey looks a tad biased by not reporting this allegation, while hitting Clinton. Trump should be rightly mad at this report, it's total bullshit and the reason it has any traction is that Trump probably would do this.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:13 pm UTC
by Liri
I take it as more trying to defuse a (potential) bomb well before it goes off. Trump's got to deny it of course, but he should honestly be grateful if it is indeed true.

The Putin praise mixed with the "I don't know Putin!" really makes him come off as an awkward Siberian Candidate. It's certainly titillating to imagine that he really is indebted to/in cahoots with Putin, however unlikely it might be.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:27 pm UTC
by elasto
sardia wrote:If anything in there is remotely true, Trump will be accused of Treason. This is highly unusual, and there's currently no evidence to back it up. This is why he considers it a witch hunt. Trump just won the biggest prize of his life, and an anonymous accuser is claiming it's all a sham with no evidence.

But what has any of that got to do with refs to Nazi Germany - which I take to be a proxy for 'fascism'?

Are your media going berserk over these allegations? Are they not making it clear that they are unsubstantiated? Personally I see nothing wrong with publishing unsubstantiated allegations but maybe that's because I treat everything the media says as unsubstantiated...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:31 pm UTC
by Chen
elasto wrote:Are your media going berserk over these allegations? Are they not making it clear that they are unsubstantiated? Personally I see nothing wrong with publishing unsubstantiated allegations but maybe that's because I treat everything the media says as unsubstantiated...


A lot of these memos have been around for a while now. It seems a summary of them was presented to the president, president elect and some of congress and that triggered some news agencies to start publishing the information, despite the fact its unverified (and possibly unverifiable). How obvious or prominent they are saying these things are unverified seems to depend on each of the particular sites, based on god knows what reasoning (political orientation, favoritism, sensationalism etc).

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:47 pm UTC
by Sableagle
elasto wrote:Are your media going berserk over these allegations?
Not on today's front pages, they weren't.

Spoiler:
The Torygraph, for our own GOP types:
Image

The i, for our liberal intellectuals:
Image

The Grauniad, for our left wing:
Image

The Daily Heil, for white middle-class people who hate homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, immigrants, emigrants, migrants, darker skin tones, lighter skin tones, cleverer people, even thicker people, richer people, poorer people, single parents, socialists, human rights campaigners, scientists, ...
Image

The Sun, for people who'd watch FOX if it had a local affiliate:
Image

The Metro, for people on the London Underground:
Image

The Financial Times, for people who have their own accountants:
Image

The Times, for people who have their own bankers:
Image

The Mirror, for left-wingers who are scared by all the long words in the Guardian:
Image

The Express, which is about the level of the Hate Mail but far more sociable and friendly:
Image

... aaaaand the Star, which still has topless Page 3 "girls":
Image


That BBC blog page has links to a lot of our media, and Trump's on most of those sites' front pages.