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 - Kasandra

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36
General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 27, 2016, 07:07:56 AM »
Giving Trump "the benefit of the doubt" is a delaying tactic until he convinces every possible supporter that he is so unqualified, lacking in knowledge and reckless that he is the worst President even they could have wished for.  Unfortunately, those people will have to be neck deep in *censored* before they'll admit that.  Can he do worse than starting two unnecessary and unwinnable wars that dragged on longer than any other wars in our nation's history and have cost over $1 trillion (so far)?  Yes, I think so and we may find out pretty quickly.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 26, 2016, 09:51:33 PM »
Hamilton (Federalist Papers 68):

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 26, 2016, 05:48:57 PM »
In this election the voters made a choice overall for Clinton, but the EC made a horrible choice by validating Trump's margin in the EC.  This is a telling example that the EC needs to be reformed so that this kind of debacle never happens again.

Fancy a civil war do you? You do know the military is overwhelmingly Republican.
You have a good imagination.  The EC is *suppposed* to reject unqualified candidates.  Do you think they did their job this time?

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 26, 2016, 04:33:52 PM »
See, I consider Hillary's loss to be a feature, not a bug in regards to the EC.

That it was Trump she ran opposite to, or that she ran at all, was the bug. In that respect, the problem isn't with the Electoral College. The problem is with the presidential candidate selection process, neither one should have made the general election.
That's not really a response but a little speechifying.  You're joining the embryonic Republican cohort that will blame Democrats for every foul, stupid and dangerous thing that Trump and the Republican Congress do because they failed -- FAILED -- to defeat the bozo the GOP put forward.  Since you make that point yourself, I will ignore any complaint you make about them.  I'm amazed that Trump won, even with all the obstacles and hindrances that Clinton had to dodge and/or carry, but he did and he's yours, so own it.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 26, 2016, 10:07:08 AM »
On all of these different systems for elections, are we bringing them up because our own system really is fundamentally flawed?

Or are we talking about changing a perfectly good system just because it didn't work out the way we wanted this one time?

I'm just asking because I don't remember any discussions like this after the last two times Obama got elected. :)
Selective memory. We talk about the EC after every election.  I am still in favor of retaining the EC, but would like to see it returned to its original purpose, which is to take voters will into consideration but exercise a higher level of thoughtful determination as to who is the best choice.  In this election the voters made a choice overall for Clinton, but the EC made a horrible choice by validating Trump's margin in the EC.  This is a telling example that the EC needs to be reformed so that this kind of debacle never happens again.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 25, 2016, 12:55:52 PM »
What I would suggest is banning political parties wholesale. Madison (IIRC) suggested to Jefferson that parties were inevitable, but I'm not so sure a system can't be designed to get rid of them. Just make every candidate run independently, ...
I can't see how that leads to anything other than voting for charismatic leaders or strongmen, which leads to dictatorial rule.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 25, 2016, 09:01:27 AM »
A good point there, too. If no parties promoted candidates it's likely that Sanders would have diluted Clinton's support even more and possibly knocked her out altogether. 

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 25, 2016, 08:36:06 AM »
The other point to be made: If the Republicans had done IR in place of the simple ballot, Trump probably wouldn't have lasted long in the primaries. Republicans splitting their votes 6+ ways helped him in a massive way as well.

You need look no further than Cruz/Rubio/Carson whose voters probably would have ranked them 1 through 4 at worst, with Trump going lower on their list.
Well, as bad as he is, at least he saved us from Cruz.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 24, 2016, 07:22:08 AM »
You've addressed several of my concerns.  I'll think on it more.  FWIW, I'm still in favor of the EC for reasons I gave in a different thread a couple of months ago.

General Comments / Re: Satan's elves
« on: December 23, 2016, 06:04:06 PM »
Using standard partisan campaign logic for this cycle, if no one admits to it would that mean that it must have happened even more than some people suspect?

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 23, 2016, 05:59:57 PM »
Instant runoff takes care of that concern.
How is that going to work?  Revote every day or just every Tuesday until somebody wins?  Who prepares the new ballot and reprograms the voting machines?  How much paid time off from work should people be granted to go vote?  Should there be a floor on voting participation else the vote doesn't count?  Could I think of at least 3 or 4 more objections?

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 23, 2016, 05:23:58 PM »
Highest ranking candidate with over 50% yes votes wins. If no one beats 50%, then disqualify all candidates and vote on a new slate.
Sounds hugely expensive to hold multiple votes, likely with declining voter participation in each successive one.

This Ragusa[n]?
The Republican Constitution of Ragusa was strictly aristocratic. The population was divided into three classes: nobility, citizens, and plebeians who were mainly artisans and peasants (serfs, coloni and freemen). All effective power was concentrated in the hands of aristocracy. The citizens were permitted to hold only minor offices, while plebeians had no voice in government. Marriage between members of different classes of the society was forbidden.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 23, 2016, 01:47:36 PM »
The funny thing about this is that while it sounds on the face of it like a reasonable suggestion, I would argue that they not only are not national assets but rather are national liabilities. They are of negative value in America's ledger.
Ok, pitch me the US political system without the two major parties.  As Jason asks, be specific what would replace it and how it would be more effective than what we have now.

I have to say Kasandra, I find the notion of making DNC email servers "national assets" intriguing. Would that, pray tell, open the door to FOI access as per any public record?
Prayer will be helpful, if not essential, in the coming regnum.  Why do you think they would be open to FOIA requests?  If they were to become protected by the US government I would expect information about how they protect them to be accessible in some manner.

As for your proposed plan of action, I have two points in response: 1) Better IT security is not an "election control" and 2) It's a moot point because I can pretty well guarantee it is already being done by both the RNC and the DNC unless they're complete imbeciles. I see no reason why this would even require government assistance, as both the RNC and DNC have the resources to pay for good network security.
1) IT is the operational center of control for electronic information.  Would you rather have nurses do it?  How about political appointees? Why not go all the way and use a magic 8-ball?  2) In that case it must not have happened, because they're probably not imbeciles.  Unless you're saying that only the DNC IT staff are imbeciles and the RNC's are all world class experts since none of the RNC data has been exposed by Wikileaks or Russia.  I think you're naive to think that the government is feckless in the area of cyber security, but if you're right we can probably cut a lot of money and staff devoted to national security and save the country $$$BB a year.  Add 17 more agencies to Rick Perrry's list of forgettable agency names.

Which brings us back to the original point: your call for Trump to "acknowledge" the hack has no practical implication, and seems more motivated by a desire to undermine the results of the election, rather than any practical concern for the integrity of the election process on an ongoing basis.
Actually, despite my utter disdain and fears regarding Trump, I think he should do it as a sign of integrity and strength.  You seem to be slipping into the New Thinking that everything is partisan and nothing has real national interest.  If you're following the news, positive attitudes toward Russia among Republicans have risen dramatically since Trump started saying that he admires Putin.  We can be sure that Putin will take that into account as he plans Russian international policy over the next four years.

General Comments / Re: Arms Race?
« on: December 23, 2016, 01:30:16 PM »
Today Trump clarified his comment to allay people's fears about what he would do if other nations expand their nuclear capabilities:

“Let it be an arms race,” Mr. Trump said, according to Ms. Brzezinski, who described her conversation with the president-elect on the morning news program moments later. Mr. Trump added: “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

I feel *much* better now, but only if I ignore the direction of US international arms policy over the past 20 years and the fact that nuclear threats from other countries have diminished during that time.  It's also good to note that Trump is helping Obama set international policy while he's still in office.  Other nations will recognize that Obama needed help and that Trump is going to drop the hammer on them as soon as he gets in office.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 23, 2016, 09:16:30 AM »
Kasandra, I'll address item #2 first. What "tighter election controls" would you propose be instituted to prevent Russian hackers from compromising DNC servers and dumping the bounty on the internet during an election campaign via Wikileaks? Please be specific.
As is said about object oriented programming, you can promote safety but not prevent fraud.  Party infrastructure for at least the two main parties should be treated as national assets and protected accordingly.  Both parties have incredibly sophisticated IT teams, so they can manage it. I'm not an IT guy, so someone else here who is should answer the call to "Please be specific".

As for #1, what in your view, does Trump "acknowledging" the hack accomplish? Is he supposed to admit that the Russians stole the election and step down so that Clinton can take his place? I am fuzzy on this point. And supposing he does acknowledge it, what then? What is to actually be done about it? Please again be specific in your response.
I find this a strange question.  It would be, you know, presidential.  OTOH, why should Trump have to admit anything that goes against his personal interests?  Well, he's already doing things that way.  The truth has no relevance except as it serves him.  At least he was willing to acknowledge that millions of people voted illegally for Clinton.

But, if I were in Trump's shoes and King I would gather the heads of the Intelligence agencies together on the first day of my reign and command them to make protecting the country's valuable cyber-assets their highest priority just after ridding their departments of people who won't sign loyalty oaths and non-disclosure agreements.  If they won't do anything about it, maybe Putin will.  Right, he's already doing it.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 23, 2016, 12:46:10 AM »
There's a funny story that if you manage somehow to go completely off the grid, no credit cards, no subscriptions, no web purchases, rent rather than own, and pay with cash or barter, one day you'll open your front door and find a free subscription to American Survivalist on your "*censored* Off Mat".  That's because even the black hole you make in the world defines the space you occupy.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 23, 2016, 12:40:25 AM »
I don't recall a response to my original question: assuming the Russians did precisely what is alleged, other than beefing up network security at the DNC, what do you propose be done about it? Go to war with Russia? Cancel the results of the election and declare Clinton the winner?
A good start would be to have Congress and Trump acknowledge that it happened.  Revealing exactly what was done might generate some public support for tighter election controls.  As Obama said (but hasn't yet done), the US will respond appropriately in a manner and time of its choosing.  I have no idea what that will be, but I hope it's spectacularly public or devastatingly covert, or both.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 22, 2016, 03:05:39 PM »
The problem here goes back to the happening upon a murder scene and finding someone holding the bloody knife. The reality is the "US Intelligence consensus" is that Russia has been found in possession of said bloody knife.

Which is not the same thing as having been found using the bloody knife.
Ah, the Bart Simpson defense: I didn't do it, you didn't see me do it, you can't prove I did it.  Or as Russia would say, "What knife?  That's a spoon.  I was eating borscht."

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 22, 2016, 03:02:25 PM »
It's even more cringe-worthy for me, because at least one web ad server company is using MPP database software that I was a core developer of to bid in real-time on ads to be served to web pages based on who the user is.  The ad server company has to complete their bid in a few milliseconds and give a price.  It's impressive how much data the ad servers can churn through quickly, but they retain their data for far too long.  I've just retired (mostly) and will spend some of my golden time figuring out how to more thoroughly cover my internet tracks and anonymize my purchase history.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 22, 2016, 10:56:36 AM »
I see, so you exercised your critical reasoning and took a media report at face value, even though they don't lay out any facts that support their conclusions?  Have I not heard you complain about fake news more than once?  How exactly can you personally tell the difference if you refuse to engage in basic logic and fact checks of your sources?
Did I?  I think you leaped to that determination because you don't agree with it.  Therefore, your conclusion is more valid than mine. Or do you have something more substantial than your excellent insight?

What's scary is that you jump from suspicion to "clear proven fact" without any actual evidence, and that others have called for vague "solutions" to prevent this in the future, none of which would possibly be consistent with the freedoms we enjoy in this country.
What better source can you suggest than a consensus across virtually all US Intelligence agencies?  I mean besides yourself, of course.

As for "the freedoms we enjoy in this country," that's the same rhetoric that is used to defend people who discriminate or deny other people their rights.  For instance, why should you be able to vote if you can't jump over a fence this high?  As Rand Paul said, if a restaurant won't serve you because you're black, well duh, just don't go there.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 22, 2016, 10:48:47 AM »
If there is one thing about the Internet that I find most cringe-worthy, it is the way that sites track individual's "preferences".  I'm still seeing ads for things I considered buying or did buy 6 months ago.  If I bought winter boots in October, why would I want to look at ads for boots the rest of the winter?  Your comment about Google is on point, as well.  My wife likes that sites tend to "know her" and offer her things she will probably like, something in the model of Pandora or other music service sites.  The world of things she is not ever hearing about is infinitely greater than things that match the notion that "...if you liked that you might also like...".  God save us from consistency bias.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 22, 2016, 06:33:22 AM »
It's well known that the Republicans are, shall we say... zealous... about purging voter rolls of people who are ineligible to vote such as felons in states where they aren't supposed to vote, dead people who aren't supposed to be voting in any states but still do in many, and other people who are not eligible to vote. I'll admit they can go overboard and inaccurately purge people who are eligible to vote. Perhaps they do it by accident or maybe they do it on purpose. Or a bit of both.
Yes, Republicans are "...zealous..." but Democrats are...evil...when they do the same thing?

There are lots of accusations in these stories to back up your conspiracy theory about Republican organized voter fraud in the form of illegal purging of voter rolls. A point was made though that the company has yet to be convicted. Everything backs up exactly what I've been saying all along that this happens on a bigger scale than we're led to believe and it's very difficult to prove anything and even if you could the penalties are negligible compared to what is gained by cheating.
A perfect example of self-justification. 

1: Your team cheats, but I can't prove it.
2: My team got caught cheating.
3: Therefore, your team cheats better because we can't catch them.
4: If they're that good at it they must be doing it everywhere all the time.
5: I'm a skoller, give me a degree for thinking.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 22, 2016, 06:28:03 AM »
You "got it from the media" who in turn "got it" "from administration sources highly placed within the the intelligence community." Which makes their credibility on the topic near nada.
Perhaps I should find better sources.  How about Facebook or WND?  They're not tainted.

The case against Russia that has been presented so far is highly circumstantial at best, and mostly revolved around the fact that "The Russians had the information" and little to nothing about what they may or may not have done with it after that step. Other than "magic happens" and "They decide to release it because Putin has a grudge against Hillary."
Makes sense. It can't be proven unless Russia makes an official announcement.  They would do that if the CIA found them out; it's only fair. That's how "Intelligence" works.

Nothing at all leaked about Trump.  The explanations here are 1) that there was nothing to leak because the RNC and Trump were clean as a whistle, 2) No matter how bad the RNC/Trump information was, we kind of knew it already, and 3) Look!  Squirrel!!!!!

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 21, 2016, 10:54:19 PM »
Suffice to say, it's my guess that the DNC emails are far juicer on an absolute basis than the Republicans, or if you prefer that the juicy portions in them come as more of a shock to their likely voters.
How did you figure that out?  Wait, I think I know...

You are saying that Wikileaks and Russia were in it together to stick it to democracy, and when I point out that Wikileaks is a private organization rather than a clandestine conspiracy you say that I'm suspicious?
Gee, I got it from the media.  Where did you get your information that it didn't happen?

However I will point out how amused I am that you've labeled me "partisan" for around the umpteenth time.
Can you guess why?  I'll give you a hint.  You continually present feelings and opinions as if they are guiding arguments.  This is a good example.  What makes you think that Wikileaks didn't get information from the places that hacked it?  There is a virtual certainty in the intelligence community that Russia was directly involved in the hacking, had a partisan objective against Clinton that is shared by Assange. 

Why is that suspicion amusing?

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 21, 2016, 08:58:34 PM »

Donald Trump's campaign and the Republican National Committee have paid at least $1.8 million to a political operative whose roster of companies include several that have been repeatedly investigated for voter registration fraud, even as Trump has complained that the election is rigged against him.

Three employees of Strategic Allied Consulting, a firm owned by conservative operative Nathan Sproul, pleaded guilty in Florida four years ago to felony charges related to altering and destroying scores of voter registration forms. There were no formal actions against the firm.

Yet recent federal campaign finance reports reviewed by The Associated Press show Sproul is now back on the RNC's payroll, this time with a firm named Lincoln Strategy Group, a renamed version of his former firm Sproul & Associates, an Arizona-based firm that was investigated for alleged voter registration misconduct in Nevada and Oregon.

No, he works for the RNC.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 21, 2016, 08:17:27 PM »
You're confusing the issue when you mention Wikileaks and Russia in the same breath. Wikileaks, for all intents and purposes, is a journalistic organization that publishes things that come into their hands.
Sometimes you are so patently obvious.  I'm not going to bother correcting you, and I won't try to correct Seriati, either.  Sometimes I wonder how you both can be so suspicious of some things and so unconvinced about others in partisan ways and never seem to realize it.

I actually think you may have missed the real truth about why the Republicans weren't "hacked" and reported on in the same way.  If I had to guess there's a lot less damaging stuff in their files.
See what I mean?

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 21, 2016, 04:41:13 PM »
I disagree with Trump about it being millions of fraudulent votes. That's too much even for me. But I could certainly see thousands of fraudulent votes in some areas, tens of thousands nationwide, which would be more than enough to swing close races. And then again it may only be less than a hundred fraudulent votes each election. It would be nice to know for sure but we probably never will.
It's not a matter of disagreeing.  It's an outright lie because not only does he have no evidence to back it up, but the evidence says it is categorically false.  Would you disagree with him if he said that Russia has not invaded Ukraine?  He has said it, and that is also categorically false.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 21, 2016, 03:16:17 PM »
It's ok that Russia hacked the political process...

Russia hacked what again?  Lol, didn't you guys say that no one was making this silly claim, or am I misremembering?
YES, you are misremembering. 
Hacking the political process does not equal hacking the vote.
Selectively releasing emails and other information that revealed secrets of one party while avoiding doing the same thing to the other party isn't significant in your mind?   To be clear, the Russians and Wikileaks had as their agenda to undermine one party in favor of the other. It appears that they had a meaningful impact on the outcome. That you don't like the party that was hacked and manipulated means that it's not anything to worry about. Very objective of you.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 21, 2016, 12:08:01 PM »
From What I'm gathering in the discussion, "Foreign influences are bad, unless they help my side(tribe), in which case they're ok."

I guess this is the biggest part of why I'm personally shrugging at a lot of this. Ok, the Russian Government has a greater than non-zero chance of having deliberately hacked, and subsequently intentionally released damaging, but true, information to the public. If true, there are things that should happen, but it's mostly in regards to the hacking itself.

Meanwhile, we've had previous discussions where several of us on this forum have discussed voter fraud, and in particular mentioned how it was very likely that there was the possibility of foreign nationals, in the form of illegal immigrants, having voted in this election in not insignificant numbers.
No, no, no.  You shrug it off because it appears to favor people whose political position differs from yours?  Really?  It's ok that Russia hacked the political process but only released information damaging to the other side, so again, that's ok?  Really?  We've discussed voter fraud, but there is zero evidence that it occurred in "not insignificant numbers".  Because we've discussed it, it's ok to say it might have happened, and if it might have happened, it probably did because we discussed it?  Really?

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 21, 2016, 12:02:58 PM »
If it wasn't for the DNC hacks, the primary election rigging of the Democrats would be just another wild conspiracy theory. All we'd hear in response to any assertions that it happened is that there is no evidence and that's all just crazy talk.
Do you honestly think the "primary...rigging" is anything significant?  I would be willing to bet that the GOP hacks that were kept hidden for selfish reasons by Russia and Wikileaks would be at least as disgusting.  If you were the sole source of news and information about US politics I would have to believe that Democrats are evil spawn and Republicans are blessed saints.  Trump is your man, the GOP is your party, I expect you to own it when the *censored* hits the fan.

General Comments / Re: Birthers are back
« on: December 20, 2016, 01:47:47 PM »
First he has to do something to warrant it. Simply being capable of doing something doesn't mean he will.
I was punning on him not being constitutionally able...;)

General Comments / Re: Birthers are back
« on: December 20, 2016, 11:44:32 AM »
I would say that I trust Trump, of all people, to keep quiet, but we all know he is constitutionally incapable of doing so.
Yet another reason to impeach him...

General Comments / Re: Birthers are back
« on: December 19, 2016, 09:38:18 AM »
OK then, you owe me juan.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 19, 2016, 09:35:32 AM »
OK, your screaming article reports an attempt to get 30 people to vote in the Bronx, which is an incredibly negligible number in a city of 8 million people, and also consider:
Last month, President-elect Donald Trump argued on Twitter that he would have won the popular vote, not just the Electoral College, if "millions of people who voted illegally" had not cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton. That claim was widely ridiculed at the time, but The New York Times actually asked the people who supervised the 2016 general election in all 50 states how many credible reports of fraud they had found. (Kansas did not respond.) The "overwhelming consensus?" The Times says: "Next to none."

Americans cast 137.7 million ballots in the 2016 election. Twenty-six states and Washington, D.C., reported zero credible allegations of fraudulent voting, eight states reported one case each, and a handful of other states said they are still collectively reviewing a couple dozen allegations of suspicious voting. "The findings unambiguously debunk repeated statements" from Trump about millions of fraudulent voters, the Times says, and "refute warnings by Republican governors in Maine and North Carolina that election results could not be trusted."

Give it a rest, be happy that you voted for the honest working man's friend instead, or get a life in the real world.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 18, 2016, 09:43:30 PM »
Cherry, I find it very fatiguing "investigating" your supposed news stories about malfeasance and evil committed by Democrats.  "" is a particularly diseased site peddling hatred and misinformation to people like you asserting over and over that liberals are evil.  Their motto is "Fighting Liberalism" and has such manifestly self-serving sections like "Liberal Lunacy" and posts articles calling Obama "Pajama boy".  If you ever choose to join the ranks of people who are interested in at least trying to look at people-not-like-yourself with some objectivity, I'll be happy to meet you half way.  In the meantime, enjoy the fake news and don't think about the fact that it's poisoning you.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: December 18, 2016, 05:36:37 PM »
A friend of ours was a poll observer at the recount in Detroit.  She observed several things:

* First and foremost, the rule was that if the recount tally differed from the election night count, the recount was ruled invalid.  Get that?  As long as they're the same, the recount results are included; if not, they are discarded.

* The ballots were counted one by one, by hand.  If the counter lost his/her place, s/he had to start over.

* The observers were allowed to ask questions.  The Clinton observer (our friend) was quiet the whole time, but the Trump observer kept interrupting to ask questions like "How many total votes have you counted so far?"  "Do you think you'll end up with more than 25 different votes?"

* Whenever the Trump observer would do that, the Trump lawyers would come over and accuse the counter of intentionally messing up the total and demand that the count be restarted.

In the end a judge declared a stop to the recount citing the amount of time it was taking and a lack of clarity in the process.

General Comments / Re: Birthers are back
« on: December 18, 2016, 05:28:07 PM »
I can't rule it out, like so many other things we are hearing about.  For instance, the reports of dead people voting in Chicago gains credibility if you are a fan of Juan, Shaun or Dawn of the Dead, which are very realistic.

General Comments / Re: Birthers are back
« on: December 18, 2016, 05:13:32 PM »
The same birth certificate that Corsi was given in 2011 just so happens to be the exact same birth certificate that the CIA/Illuminati/Anunnaki used to forge BHO's? That to me seems fishy as hell.
Not if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama's BC was forged.  It's just a matter of connecting the dots, no matter how many dots or how many tries it takes.  It would probably take fewer dots to prove that Obama is Queen Elizabeth's illegitimate love child.

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown
« on: December 17, 2016, 10:23:25 AM »
He kind of insinuated that he had an insider and it may have been the guy who got wacked in the "botched robbery" in D.C.
That would bring the number of people that Hillary and Bill have had killed over the years to about 100.  Who's next?

General Comments / Re: Trump's remaining picks
« on: December 17, 2016, 03:01:06 AM »
'zackly, not their fault.

General Comments / Re: Trump's remaining picks
« on: December 16, 2016, 09:24:48 PM »
Fiorina for at least one of them, maybe two.  Given the reservoir of expertise they each bring, I don't see why they can't run all the agencies as a combined committee.

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« on: December 11, 2016, 11:40:22 AM »
I like it when hard numbers can be examined so that we can see the real results.
Then you should use "hard numbers" that prove something.  Here's one for you:  The fluctuation in age of elected Miss America's closely follows the rise and fall of murders by steam, hot vapors or hot objects.  Hard numbers, real results y'all.

If you care about the proof that article implies, here's what Snopes says about it:
The change in the estimate of life expectancy presented here stems from the fact that its prediction a year earlier was based on what looked to be — but turned out not to be — a trend toward increasing improvements in mortality rates across the country. The change reported in this new study results from tempering that earlier projection. However, life expectancies are still expected to rise across the board, just at a slower rate than was predicted in 2015.

In other words, it was predicted that life expectancies would increase more than they did, so the new estimates reflect a more accurate prediction that life expectancies will continue to increase, but at a lower rate than was previously predicted.

Does this correction mean anything to you?

General Comments / Re: Air Force One Kerfuffle
« on: December 09, 2016, 05:31:25 PM »
What will happen when he takes delivery and tells them he isn't going to pay for it because they did a crappy job.  In the past he just goes ahead and uses what he's abused, but I don't think that will fly in this case.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Taiwan
« on: December 05, 2016, 02:25:27 PM »
Then nothing Seriati.  I fear the day more powers start calling our bluff.
I can't imagine that China, Russia, India or other countries that are among our allies today (France, Germany) are going to be bullied with bluffs by Trump. If Syria had a red line that Obama didn't follow through on, imagine how those other countries will react when Trump doesn't build that wall and doesn't "impose" 35% import tariffs on their goods.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Taiwan
« on: December 05, 2016, 11:03:42 AM »
It sounds like your plan is to trick him into doing good.  Good luck with that.

Not trick. Simply manipulate through praise.

For example, if the mainstream press gave him kudos for being the first president to address the issue of ocean deoxygenation through destruction of coral reefs, I suspect we'd see him do more there than that one tweet.
Like I said, good luck with hoping to have a chance to praise him for saving coral reefs in places he doesn't own or vacation at.  Maybe if Ivanka outsources her manufacturing nearby he'd take a look at it.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Taiwan
« on: December 05, 2016, 08:56:43 AM »
It sounds like your plan is to trick him into doing good.  Good luck with that.

Here's an example of what to expect from his China diplomacy.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Taiwan
« on: December 04, 2016, 09:22:31 PM »
If that's true, all the more reason to seek to manipulate him for good.
That seems naive.  He understands power and has no particular use for good that comes without a profit.  Did he do good in the Carrier deal?

General Comments / Re: Trump & Taiwan
« on: December 04, 2016, 03:46:44 PM »
Trump's motivation is such that I believe he can be manipulated to do good or evil.
Perhaps because he has no moral compass in addition to his lack of knowledge.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Taiwan
« on: December 04, 2016, 01:18:36 PM »
The US diplomatic agencies are beside themselves over Trump's informal way of just calling up foreign leaders to say "Howdy".  His profound lack of knowledge, understanding and concern about the lack of either is destabilizing years if not decades of "mutual understandings" between countries.  As the man said

Were they religious mushrooms?

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36