Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max™]

Hah, people say you can't walk away from family political discussions, just like they say you can't choose family, in fact you can, just gotta remember that what other people think of you only matters if you let it. Come to the Jerk Side, embrace the Asshole within and let the opinions of others fall away like water off a bastard of a duck's back.


Oh, and Cops along with Rescue 911 were indeed the early examples, but it wasn't until that Burnett fucker made people think it was the Next Big Thing that we wound up on the path leading to Trump.

[smjjames]

Hmm, intriguing... http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html If those computer scientists are correct and it's true that the results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania really were somehow hacked or otherwise manipulated, it's going to instantly throw everything into chaos.

2016 isn't going to be over til it says it's dead all right. BTW, Michigan hasn't even been called yet, which may not in itself be indicative of a problem, but it does seem a bit unusual. edit: Though in the NYmag article, it says that they found a 'suspicious pattern', which could be anything, so, they don't have actual solid proof, just something that looks odd.

[Criptfeind]

Why would they ask the Hillary team to look into it? I'm sure there's a governmental office in charge of such things.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The pattern they claim to have found is that electronic voting areas were on average about 7% lower for Clinton than paper voting areas.

Now we just need an FSB saboteur to be caught and all hell really will break loose.

Hey, it is 2016, right?

[smjjames]

They're asking her to challenge the results, not look into it, and I guess it's partially that Clinton is running out of time to do a challenge in those states. It doesn't say that they have contacted the governmental office in charge of that thing or why they haven't.

The pattern they claim to have found is that electronic voting areas were on average about 7% lower for Clinton than paper voting areas.

Now we just need an FSB saboteur to be caught and all hell really will break loose.

Hey, it is 2016, right?

Or machine malfunctions. But there would have to be a pretty major malfunction in a LOT of machines in order to cover three states.

[wierd]

that would mean trump was right to be worried about election rigging and hacking, which if i recall, was foofooed, amid claims of all the safeguards against it.

i find this amusing, and doubly so if true.

yes. I remembered right.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-rigged/

[smjjames]

Why those computer expert guys aren't clanging the alarm bell over it though, I don't know, they seem to be kind of low-key alarm about it.

I'd be clanging the alarm bell over it as loud as possible....

And Trump was claiming the rigged story as soon as it started to look like he would lose.

[wierd]

correllation is not causation. there could be unreported variables that are involved, and no malfeasance at all.  (the areas likely to use these machines may be more heavily republican in a consistent way, for instance.)

these are computer scientists. they grok this. that is why they are reportng an aparent anomaly, and asking for an investigation.

NOT saying "OMG rigged election!!" on reaction.

[smjjames]

correllation is not causation. there could be unreported variables that are involved, and no malfeasance at all.  (the areas likely to use these machines may be more heavily republican in a consistent way, for instance.)

Good point on correlation is not neccesarily causation.

edit: In something totally unrelated to the election but totally related to America: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/us-navys-most-expensive-destroyer-breaks-down-in-panama-canal *facepalm* Dammit........ How can something like this have so many problems? Sure, the shakedown cruise can be rocky, but they don't usually have this many problems well after the shakedown cruise. Or maybe this is the usual rockyness and it just looks like it's having a lot due to it being so high profile.

[misko27]

Being moderate centrist man is hard.

Ugh. I hear this endlessly. No, I've always thought it must be much harder to live in that sort of world where you think that everyone is out to get you, that you (and few others) are inspired by the light of the truth, and that evil dark forces that only you bear witness to control the land.

Presumably, some people find comfort in that, else they wouldn't do it (no one willingly does things they do not think is good). But while it may perhaps be comfortable, it is not healthy, and unconducive to long-term sanity.

What is easy is simplicity. What is difficult is nuance. Much easier to say that world is black and white, and easy to rely that on absolute moral righteousness. It is that righteousness that is easy. Being moderate is not necessarily harder than being liberal or conservative. Being a wise moderate is entirely so.

i find this amusing, and doubly so if true.

I remember thinking that if Clinton won, the claims of Russian hacking would have been labeled obviously false, but that if Trump won, especially if the polls predicted otherwise, the claims would quite suddenly seem prescient rather than alarmist. Given the results... I wish I had said this aloud earlier.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Being moderate centrist man is hard.

Ugh. I hear this endlessly. No, I've always thought it must be much harder to live in that sort of world where you think that everyone is out to get you, that you (and few others) are inspired by the light of the truth, and that evil dark forces that only you bear witness to control the land.

Presumably, some people find comfort in that, else they wouldn't do it (no one willingly does things they do not think is good). But while it may perhaps be comfortable, it is not healthy, and unconducive to long-term sanity.

What is easy is simplicity. What is difficult is nuance. Much easier to say that world is black and white, and easy to rely that on absolute moral righteousness. It is that righteousness that is easy. Being moderate is not necessarily harder than being liberal or conservative. Being a wise moderate is entirely so.

Eyy... watch your step there. Were you implying that moderates tend to be more wise? (And of course an idiot-magnet could still be a good ideology...)

Spoiler: I SUBMIT MYSELF FOR YOUR APPROVAL (click to show/hide)

1. The world sure isn't black and white. I'd paint it as more black and grey, honestly, in one of my pessimistic moods.
2. I think that the world would be a hell of a lot better if it were anarcho-socialist. That implies that the people who hold power over others are... if not evil or immoral, at least bad for society. But that's okay - saying that bad things exist isn't necessarily a demonstration of self-delusion.
3. I try to avoid being "the regressive left," even though it's difficult. It's easy to overlook flaws in your arguments. I detest free-speech violations in the name of SOCIAL JUSTICE or KEEPING THOSE DAMN FASCISTS QUIET, because seriously guys can't you see the similarities to the Red Scare?
4. I don't think that the world is out to get me, but I do lean toward "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" occasionally. I don't think that most people are evil.
5. I think that I'm right, obviously, or I wouldn't agree with myself. But I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, and then I change my mind.

IS THIS ADEQUATELY WISE, OH GREAT ONE

[wierd]

Grey. Endless, featureless grey, only appricably different when placed next to another. There is no white. There is no black. Only more dark, and more light.

Imagine the most evil person you can. Somebody is always more evil even than that.

thankfully the reverse is also true.

I am grey. To the left of me, i am seen as the right. to the right of me, i am seen as left. I am grey. so are they, they just believe they are black or white.

[Egan_BW]

Shade and saturation are only in your head. Reality only sees your hue.

[smjjames]

Shade and saturation are only in your head. Reality only sees your hue.

Yes, your hue hue hue hue hue.

[Bumber]

My brother is convinced that Winner-Take-All and FPtP are fine. He says that:
Getting rid of W-T-A gives rural states too much power, somehow. I don't really understand/remember his explanation. (He stated that rural states don't have many urbanites, which is probably demonstrably wrong.)
FPtP causes the two main parties to make concessions to independents to avoid losing votes, costing them the election. He said the primary elections are sufficient. IIRC, he said independents couldn't win even under IRV.

I'm not very convinced, but I wasn't able to give any good counterarguments at the time. There was a short discussion about it a few days ago in this thread, so I thought I'd bring it up here.