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 - AI Wessex

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 30
General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 23, 2016, 09:21:26 AM »
If you want to make a distinction between listening to your calls and recording everything that is being said or even gathering all the metadata then that's what I would call lawyer's lies. Regular people aren't interested in such parsing exercises.

For instance,

NSA Gen Keith Alexander LIES @ Def Con 2012 "we do not collect"
In the video he says that they only "collect" on calls involving someone outside the US.  Is that what you are calling a lie?  What's your evidence?

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 23, 2016, 09:15:38 AM »
I'm counting as part of the establishment, and I suppose basically my definition of it, the open borders globalist new world order corporatists who are selling America out for a quick payday and getting their own short term gain for our long term pain.
That's a pretty roundabout and non-standard definition.  I could ask you to define who those people are more specifically, but I don't think we'd get much further than you don't trust "them," whoever they are.  As for what Tea Partiers would do about those things, ... what exactly is that?

As for the Whitewater papers that were discovered, Cherry is on target.  But it didn't matter, since neither the House nor Senate nor Kenneth Starr found that either of the Clintons had committed any crimes.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 22, 2016, 01:03:01 PM »
I'd like to point out that the thing that makes all of these conspiracy theories so viable is the fact that our government is lying to us and constantly. If you like facts, that one is indisputable.
The thing I'd like to point out is that you use that as a smokescreen to validate every conspiracy theory that gets past your spam filter.  Being right one out of a hundred times about one of these "theories" in which the government is a villain conniving to deprive you of your guns doesn't justify using the other ninety nine times you're wrong where you defend hopeless losers and fanatics or are mortally suspicious of people you don't like.  You just gave a perfect example of your special kind of paranoia:

I'll just give one example out of plenty:

"Obama: No one listening to your calls"
I read the article.  Nowhere in it does it say that the government is "listening to your calls".  It says that the government is collecting information about phone calls, which is perhaps pushing the limit of government intrusion, but is not the same thing.  You like to stretch things beyond that breaking point to reassure yourself that the government really is out to get you. 

I don't think you've ever proffered up one of these "theories" that turned out to be true, but that doesn't mean that one day you won't be right.  There's a saying that an optimist has to be right all the time in order not to be proven wrong, but a pessimist only has to be proven right once.  You don't need even that much confirmation.

Now Trump has lied too of course but the good thing about Trump is that his lies are completely different from the lies our government has been telling us and Trump will have no compunctions against exposing those lies since he isn't the one who told them.
Now you winge completely out of whack by believing a man who has shown dozens of times that he is completely comfortable lying about anything and everything.  I can't fathom why you trust everything about him and nothing about people that he lies about.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 22, 2016, 08:34:18 AM »
My interpretation is that he is saying his concession will not be automatic. He may concede or not and it will all depend on the situation at the time. I doubt he is saying that he will refuse to concede no matter what.
He's not being asked to pre-concede the election.  Rather, he's already said that the vote is rigged in a conspiracy against him that goes beyond the Democratic Party to include "the media", corporate influences and even a "global conspiracy".  He's even said his opponent should be disqualified because of crimes she's never been charged with committing.  He's explicitly said he can't lose in a fair election.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 22, 2016, 08:00:11 AM »
Remember Florida's history.  Given all the irregularities committed by the state election board (remember Katherine Harris?), we'll never know who actually should have won.  FWIW, if the recount of those 4 heavily Democratic areas had taken place it is likely that Bush still would have ended up with more votes than Gore.  The bigger issue that affected Gore's total was incomplete re-examination of under-counted ballots where neither he nor Bush as credited with a vote and the state violating its own rules to count overseas ballots that were post-marked after the cutoff date.  Those were mostly from overseas military personnel and heavily favored Bush.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 22, 2016, 07:47:46 AM »
I'm highly opposed to this idea of supporting proxies to fight our wars.  It didn't work with Saddam, it didn't work with Al Queda, it's not going to work to our long term benefit with the Syrian "rebels" we are supporting and will ultimately betray.  Why does everyone see it in hindsight, yet let it go in real time?
I completely agree with this statement.  We supported Iran until we supported Iraq in its war against them.  We completely supported Iraq until they invaded Kuwait.  As the ex-Ambassador of Pakistan pointed out, it is a mistake to think that countries have friends when they have only mutual interests.  As interests change, so do allies.  Americans in general don't understand that.  Remember when Reagan sent McFarlane to Iran with a cake an offer to give them weapons in exchange for them gaining the release of the Lebanon hostages?  The sophistication of the typical American citizen about international relationships is so low that we think of other countries as taking "sides" in teams and the teams are in opposing leagues.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 22, 2016, 07:03:46 AM »
I heard a good point made somewhere today about how Trump is catching so much flak from Democrats because he talked about not accepting the election results when the history is that Al Gore received complete Democrat support back then and still does to this day for actually NOT accepting the Presidential election results.
I will admit one thing about the Gore-Bush election issue, which is that it is impossible to get people to stop trying to make it seem like what happened in 2000 is anything like what Trump is threatening.  Gore called Bush to concede, but then the state of Florida told him the state's vote result could not be certified until a recount was completed.  Gore then un-conceded, which was unusual, but appropriate for the circumstances.  After going back and forth over which parts of the state should be included in the recount, it was Bush who took the case to the US Supreme Court after the Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore.

Neither Gore nor Bush said anything about voter fraud.  The challenges were all about irregularities in how the state counted votes.

Got that?  Gore didn't start the recount process (Florida did), didn't take it to the Supreme Court (Bush did), didn't claim voter fraud (nobody did).

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 21, 2016, 02:32:02 PM »
I agree that is Trump's intent as I've been known to say that Republicans need to outnumber Democrats at the polls by at least a million and a half voters to make up for the dead and other fraudulent votes. I'll admit that's a truthful hyperbole as I have no idea how many fraudulent votes are cast each election and it could be...
Cherry, you're falling behind.  Even FOX News expert today said that fraud is negligible, and that the vast majority of about 900,000 ballots rejected in 2012 (less than 1% of the total) were because the postmark was too late or there was a question about whether the signature matched.

There is no significant fraud, and Trump has no evidence that there is.  It's not "truthful hyperbole" to make *censored* up whenever you feel like it.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 21, 2016, 02:25:58 PM »
Actually I will indeed blame Obama, Al. Everything you said has merit but the coup de grace was when Obama pulled out of Iraq too early.
Of course it was too early, or perhaps way too late.  Your fave Trump said we should have gotten out in 2007 and taken the oil with us.  Was he wrong?  If so, how do you know he's right now when he *promises* he has a no-muss, no-fuss secret plan that will solve the whole ISIS problem so fast you'll be tired of winning.

To answer your question directly I have no idea how many dollars and how many lives it would have cost. Or saved. That's pure speculation. All we know for sure is that what actually happened was a total disaster. Alternatives may have turned out worse or better and we'll never know which.
Feel free to criticize and condemn, even though you have no suggestions to offer and no idea how many lives or how much money it would cost, even with the benefit of years of hindsight and 1000's of analyses.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 21, 2016, 11:05:36 AM »
At the risk of it sounding like I agree with you on this (I'm sure we would disagree about every detail of our seemingly mutual disapproval), Bush I's huge mistake was the invasion of Iraq/Kuwait and the bigger one was rigging the outcome so that the job was left only half done.  In order to assemble the coalition that supported the invasion he had to agree that this was not an attempt at regime change in Iraq, but a containment approach using sanctions after the inevitable battlefront victory.  That teed up the destruction of the country as it festered in corruption and oppression for the next decade.  The could have been corrected under Clinton, but he accepted the risks and instability in Iraq because the coalition deal Bush I had worked out was binding on the US and he believed that the mess was contained within the country's borders.  I think he hoped that there would be a revolution in Iraq that never materialized because Saddam Hussein was more viciously successful with his brutal control over the population than expected.

That was followed by the absolutely disastrous second invasion of Iraq by Bush II.  I understand the feeling among our military soldiers and veterans that we could have and should have finished the job the first time and were in a way glad to see the second invasion take place.  The unbelievable incompetence of the entire Bush II military command apparatus, starting with Rumsfeld and Cheney, created the whole mess in Iraq -- and the entire Mideast region -- that we're now living through and will continue to live through for at least another generation.  Mind-boggling stupidity, mendacity, hubris, not to mention their own xenophobic view of non-westerners (Arabs, Muslims, undemocratic governments) coupled with hyped and misinformed intelligence and unquenchable unrealistic beliefs about US exceptionalism as an extension of their own unconstrained egos are the direct antecedents of the mess we're in now.  Don't blame Obama for creating anything, even if he has proven unable to fix it.

But having said all of that, Trump would be far, far worse.  He raises any and all criticisms of either Bush, Bill Clinton or Obama into a new realm of self-promoting narcissism and fantasy.  The same level of self-awareness that attaches to his claim that "No one has more respect for women that I do" applies to every other area where he contemplates the world from his gold toilet seat.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 21, 2016, 10:15:28 AM »
Wasn't that when the Bush Presidential dynasty started? So you think the Bush's were good for America then?
Me personally, not at all.  Do you think GHW Bush was a disaster?  Who do you think he was referring to when he talked about "the right man"?

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 21, 2016, 07:17:46 AM »
Cherry,  I know you use your man Trump as a prophet of doom because he knows what's really going on. Note the year:
“Trump began by telling the people who were there that he wouldn’t run for president in 1988, which disappointed some, especially Dunbar. Then Trump railed, with no notes, and for roughly the next half hour, about Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Washington, Wall Street, politicians, economists and “nice people” of whom he had “had enough,” he said. This country was facing “disaster” and was “being kicked around.” Other countries were “laughing at us.”

“It makes me sick,” Trump said.

"If the right man doesn’t get into office,” he warned the Rotarians, “you’re going to see a catastrophe in this country in the next four years like you’re never going to believe. And then you’ll be begging for the right man.”

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 20, 2016, 11:17:28 AM »
My understanding is that you can't bring a challenge directly to the SC court without some extreme and urgent Constitutional basis with huge consequences if no decision is made.  Gore and Bush ping-ponged their way all the way up the ladder one step at a time.  I would expect that Trump would ask the SC to review both this election and the 2013 Emmy's because he got robbed in both votes.

But in regards to Clinton winning, don't count those chickens until they turn into turkeys. You never know.
Nice trope ;).

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 20, 2016, 10:54:50 AM »
So the standard for accepting the results of an election has already been set at bringing it all the way to the Supreme Court. Trump is able to challenge the results up to there before anyone starts freaking out. That seems fair enough.
It's legitimate to follow the process as long as the challenge is credible.  Gore had well-documented facts and a good argument.  What will Trump's argument be?  That Republicans, Democrats, the media and a global conspiracy stole the election?  That's a tough argument to make to the SC.

Ok so we have a 8 member SC, evenly split right?  What happens if they split?
I assume that a tie is a defeat, since it has been so far.  If they tie on a request to review a case, it won't be reviewed.  If they tie on a decision, the appropriate lower level decision stands.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 20, 2016, 09:24:52 AM »
I also think Hillary "won" the debate but her dodge / pivot / spinning on the foundation question was just awful.  This should have been something easy to dismiss or explain.  I thought up several responses right on the spot and she had ages to prep for the question and decided to go with that?  What the heck? 
I was thinking the same thing.  She has elsewhere said emphatically that people tried to gain access in a quid pro quo exchange but that they didn't get the audience they sought.  OTOH, nothing she would have said would have convinced anyone that the CF isn't corrupt, since they've already made up their minds and you can't have a smoking gun that proves a negative.

Honestly if this had been a boxing match I would have been looking for the ref to step in and stop the fight.
It's kind of funny that Trump tried to play serious and Hillary was the attack dog.  He was flailing after the first few exchanges.  TKO, fer sher.

BTW, I forgot to say props to Chris Wallace. He was tough on both but didn't step on them more than they deserved.  I also thought the mods in the second debate were pretty good.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 20, 2016, 08:07:21 AM »
I thought about that. It has merit, but I'm not convinced.  How do you make sure everyone has one?  What if you lose it or your password?  There's also the minor issue that you (not the government) can be hacked and your vote is no longer secret.  But if you go this route, then you should be able to vote online, as well.  No polling places, no lines, but who manages the web sites and how are they secured?  These are all operational questions that could prove challenging.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 20, 2016, 07:59:39 AM »
Lol, AI.  I followed the case from the legal side in depth.  There was nothing gracious that occurred there.  I don't see anyone involved in trying to get an actual result, they all were trying to change the results.

In any event, the point is that it is total hypocrisy to have people (including on this board) whine about a stolen election for 12 years and act like its disqualifying not to pre-endorse that you'd accept a result.  Do you concede that Trump could act just like Gore legitimately in you eyes?
Florida isn't the only state with automatic recount conditions, so if it happens there or elsewhere this time I would expect the candidates to look closely for irregularities that might have tipped the result against them.  That's not what Trump is talking about, but nobody really knows what the hell he's saying about almost anything, so I have no idea what to expect from him after he gets schlonged bigly on the 8th.

On Florida, the state did everything possible to make it hard for likely Democratic voters to vote in 2000 and continues to do so.  They limit the number of voting booths in the inner cities so that people have to stand in line for up to 4 hours to vote, they have disenfranchised a massive number of ex-felons, and this year the governor tried to cut off voter registration even though a hurricane had disrupted the process.  A federal judge just declared "bizarre" and "obscene" a new Florida mail-in ballot law that invalidates a ballot if the signature isn't a perfect match to one on file while allowing ballots that have no signature on file.  Gore had every reason to be suspicious of the slender majority that was declared for Bush in 2000.  Even so, after the SC made their ruling, Gore said:
Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto: ''Not under man, but under God and law.'' That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest, as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.

I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 20, 2016, 12:23:14 AM »
Florida vote counting law requires a paper ballot recount if the election result is within .5%, which it was.  Both sides maneuvered to get the result they wanted.  Gore conceded (graciously) after the SC ruling.

Lol, AI, I actually read that article (among others) before I responded to you the first time.  Nothing there contradicts what I said.  If you don't understand a measure like, voter enthusiasm, and what it means don't try and dump that on me.  And to be clear, logically, I didn't contradict myself, "higher" is a relative term, her being higher than Trump is mostly because his voter's enthusiasm has declined.

So again, voter enthusiasm (a measure of whether people are likely to vote), measures a lot more noise than my claim.  Maybe you're one of the outliers that thinks she is a great candidate and would choose her over other Democratic and Republican options.  Based on your history though, I'm inclined to believe you fit into the category of "Democratic" block voter.
I confess I don't think I understand a word of this, except that I'm a block voter, which I'm not.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 19, 2016, 11:06:59 PM »
Well, that was interesting.  Clinton squibbed out of a few answers, but Trump was Trump, which won't help him with anybody who isn't already supporting him.  I thought it was completely outrageous that said he won't commit to accepting the outcome of the election.  He's a loony. 

Since you began this sub-topic with your candid and confident comment that:
I think Hillary may have hit an all time low on people who are voting for her because they like her.'s incumbent on you to back that up rather than quibble with my empirical measure (here for instance) that says otherwise.

Hillary trailed Trump for most of the election and really only caught up recently.  Her "higher enthusiasm" is almost entirely based on declining enthusiasm by  Trump voters.
Here you contradict your point and agree that enthusiasm for Trump is now lagging behind that for Clinton.

General Comments / The Third Debate
« on: October 19, 2016, 07:14:12 PM »
Getting the popcorn started...

AI, I don't think there's any doubt that Trump has a core of enthusiastic voters.  Haven't you complained about how many of his voters are unpersuadable?

He also has a bunch of lesser of two evil voters and single issue voters.  I think Hillary may have hit an all time low on people who are voting for her because they like her.
So, you aren't going to explain why voter enthusiasm is higher for her, which suggests more people actually want to vote for her than want to vote for Trump.  How does that correlate with your assertion that she has hit an all time low of people who like her?

I'm almost to the point where I don't believe there are Clinton supporters.  Maybe middle age white women, maybe a few other outliers.  Most voters are with Clinton because they are either Democratic block voters, single or primary issue voters or anti-Trump.  I literally only know one person who is excited about voting for Clinton and even he hems and haws trying to justify it, couple that with literally hundreds I knew who were excited about voting for Obama and it's easy to see why this election hasn't been put away at this point (though its darn close).
well, if you believe that Trump has enthusiastic voters you'll have to explain why voter enthusiasm is higher for her.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 19, 2016, 11:15:46 AM »
From your own article:

The hack is performed by inserting a cheap electronic device into the e-voting machine.

That's not exactly hacking remotely, in the traditional sense. It is tampering with the hardware.

I don't understand how real time results improve security, and having central servers creates a whole new tampering opportunity.

Many states already do voter registration through DMV, but people likely move between license renewals so that's only a partial solution. Same with many of the other proposed methods. Now, if the concern is that people who shouldn't vote at all get registered, then utility bills and paystubs are insufficient.

To some extent, long voting lines help prevent repeat voters, if that's a thing. :D
Several things to comment on.

* Inserting hardware while the machines are in storage enables remote hacking, which they demonstrate.  Machine storage has to be secure, and the code in the voting machines has to be audited both before and after the election to look for intentional manipulation of the kind that VW did.
* Realtime monitoring can detect after-the-fact manipulation, even if it occurs milliseconds after the vote is cast.  It also can be used when the polls close to make sure manipulation of the tallies didn't occur.  The logs can be analyzed, as well.
* I'll add one more thing here, that every voter should be able to request a paper receipt when they leave the booth showing how they voted.  If you think that's yet another burden, I can get a receipt from most parking meters and every store purchase already, so it's not a big deal.
* Adding central servers only increases chances for hacking if hacking is possible.  This can be prevented or at a minimum detected in real-time so that steps can be taken to stop it or shut down the machine until it can be fixed.
* Utility bills and pay stubs aren't foolproof, but that's all that some people have.  If a person registers with those, you can still verify that they vote only once.
* Long lines prevent even first-time voting, which is why Florida and other southern states limit the number of machines in heavily democratic voting precincts.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 19, 2016, 10:48:18 AM »
Cherry, I would like to see the unedited videos before I ascribe a shred of legitimacy to anything coming from O'Keefe, who is an infamous Republican hitman himself.  His cut and splice antics in the past have completely distorted what the people he records were actually saying.  For instance, Time Magazine is uncertain about the reliability of the tapes, saying:
At other moments, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the same quotes on these tapes can be read both ways. Take this one from Foval: “The one thing I’m never going to do is have some kid get punched out at a rally and then not have his doctor bill and his legal bill, if he gets arrested, paid for.” Veritas says that is proof that the “Clinton dark machine is ready for the violence they foment.” Defenders say it is proof that Foval was rejecting Veritas’ suggestion that they ought to start riots to draw attention. Without the full context, it’s impossible to know.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 19, 2016, 09:21:58 AM »
That comment didn't move the discussion forward, so I'll offer some suggestions that might.  First, ballot-box fraud could be due to either the voter or the box.  Starting with the box, the solutions are not that difficult to imagine, but they're not cheap.  First, the box itself should collect and store votes electronically.  In 2011 a Professor in Maryland showed how Diebold machines could be hacked remotely.  The machines should be toughened to prevent that.  The computer networking industry has largely solved this problem for commercial servers already, despite the lazy corporate server protection policies leading to hacks that are pointed at to say otherwise.

All voting booths should be connected to central servers in each county or district where the machines can be monitored in realtime.  This setup is called either hub-and-spoke or edge computing.  The regional stations collect the votes in aggregate for each voting option and periodically forward their totals to state level master aggregation servers.  States could even use cloud systems to centralize the collection and processing of the information.  All servers at every level continuously monitor their own activities and log every event (each vote, each heartbeat test, each aggregation requested or sent).  I've worked in distributed server and MPP (Massively Parallel Programming) for over 20 years and can tell you that none of what I've proposed so far is in any way new. 

What's new is putting the hardware in place to do these things. Edge machines are cheap and powerful, and you don't need one for each "booth", only one per voting place.  I won't get further into the weeds on how this can all be configured.  The higher level machines would be of higher power, but not by a lot given the rapidly increasing capacity and power of the machines in recent years coupled with their lower costs.

Back to the bottom, each voter is verified by the voting machine, not by your grandmother's older sister.  This can include signature recognition, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest fingerprints or other biometrics, for reasons I mentioned in my previous post.  FWIW, the government has my fingerprints already from my Global Entry application process, but I don't want mine used for voting either.

As for voter fraud, that's an inherently more difficult problem to completely eliminate, but not nearly as hard to reduce to the point of irrelevancy.  First of all, it hasn't been proven (only asserted) that one party benefits from voter fraud more than the other.  Vote fraud may cancel itself out, in other words.  For it to matter if one party does do it more than the other, it has to occur enough that the result for the entire state swings to that candidate.  No one has ever proven that such a thing has happened.

I'm left thinking that preventing voter fraud would be too expensive and too intrusive.  OTOH, voter validation is much more achievable and relatively easy to achieve, as well.  Some suggestions:

* Register voters when they get a driver's license or register their cars.
* Register voters during the diennial census process, since the government has people going door to door across the country
* Allow people to register at their local municipal government office with utility bills or pay stubs.
* Beyond that, let them register at the voting place using any government issued ID.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 19, 2016, 08:56:23 AM »
Sometimes at the bank they will take my fingerprint as I.D. That might be an option eventually.
Hard for me to imagine hard-edge right-wingers letting the government take their fingerprint without having committed a crime.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 18, 2016, 08:01:21 PM »
Jeez, Drudge and O'Keefe in the same breath.  I need to get some air.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 18, 2016, 09:51:30 AM »
Will the election be stolen if Trump loses?  Right now the chances of him winning based on national polling is about 10%.  We can discuss whether Hillary will shoot suspected Republicans on sight once we get clear on this point.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 18, 2016, 09:12:51 AM »
Cherry, I'll grant you that people on the left do say some or all of those things about Trump, me included.  There are two significant differences between the political oppositions, however.  First - and most importantly - Trump himself says all of the hateful things about Clinton and has over and over called for citizens to take matters into their own hands against her and by extension, the political establishment.  There is scant difference between his statements and those of an insurrectionist.  By calling for 2A backers to take action, he's perilously close to calling for a jihad or even terrorism against the government. 

Second, nothing like this has happened to Democratic Party offices yet.  I'm deeply worried that there will be violence between now and the election and even more worried that Trump has helped coalesce a counter-government movement of armed anarchists who will continue to "take action" after the election and perhaps for years to come.

But I don't think he wants that outcome.  In fact, I don't think he cares about that at all.  His son has already started exploring creating a Trump TV network, and Trump has amassed several $100M from supporters that he will find a way to convert to his own use.  If the country goes to hell and people firebomb each other, that will be ok as long as they tune into channel 666 and pretty women throw themselves at his feet.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 17, 2016, 08:25:47 PM »
Seriati, I just read about a Democratic campaign office attacked in the same city as the Republican office attack on the same day.  How come nobody reported on this?

The timing is the only unsurprising thing about it.  He goes on national TV and denies ever sexually assaulting women after a tape is revealed where he claims that he did just that.  The reaction from women he did assault is to speak out after years of keeping the experiences secret either out of shame or because they didn't want to draw attention to themselves.  Can you imagine how painful it can be to say "I was molested" by someone powerful and famous, and for him to respond to ALL of them by calling them liars?

Here is a personal anecdote directly related to this story.  My wife told me the morning after the debate that she had woken up from a dream where an old professor had come to the door of our house and asked to come inside.  He had a reputation for treating his women students poorly, including my wife, who for years afterward would react visibly if we were out somewhere and she saw someone who looked like him.

A few days later she was having coffee with a friend who was the first woman to become a COO at a major hospital chain in our area.  The woman said the 2nd debate brought back a lot of memories of when she was the only woman officer at the hospital; one man who was higher up in the hospital hierarchy would regularly make comments about her figure in meetings.

Though neither of them had been physically abused, I would say they both were survivors.  The women abused by Trump deserve to be acknowledged as survivors rather than challenged as liars or opportunists.  I'll note that Trump categorically believes all of the women he's dredged up who claim that Bill Clinton abused them.  No problem with their stories for him.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 17, 2016, 03:32:13 PM »
It surprised me that you left them out. I assume because it would have spoiled your left wing attack theme.  The first place I saw it reported was the NY Times.   My god, think of all the permutations that make democrats look like villains, but nobody I saw on the conservative side reposted the two armed Trump supporters who patrolled outside a democratic party headquarters.   As the Donald would say,  SAD!
You do KNOW that carried fireARMS, are different from thrown fireBOMBS, right?  :)
I agree that intimidation is less than actual violence, but it was a warning.

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security
« on: October 17, 2016, 03:30:15 PM »
If Saddam Hussein were alive and in power, there isn't an ISIS.
Sadly, that's probably true, but it's impossible to extrapolate from 2003 until today what might have happened. fwiw, I opposed any action in Syria because of the high uncertainty. We didn't know who to arm or what their real objectives were.   Not a good context for a committed policy. Sometimes *censored* happens whatever we try to do.   Libya is another case in point.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 17, 2016, 03:19:17 PM »
It surprised me that you left them out. I assume because it would have spoiled your left wing attack theme.  The first place I saw it reported was the NY Times.   My god, think of all the permutations that make democrats look like villains, but nobody I saw on the conservative side reported on the two armed Trump supporters who patrolled outside a democratic party headquarters.   As the Donald would say,  SAD!

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 17, 2016, 12:31:44 PM »
Curiously, you left out FOX.  Nada, which can only be explained by the fact that FOX is in the tank for Hillary.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 17, 2016, 11:47:50 AM »
To claim any sort of equivalency between her campaign's rhetoric and his you have to show the rhetoric that you think is somehow equivalent.  Otherwise, he and everyone else are free to complain as much as they like and not provide a basis in reality for it, but should not expect anything beyond speculation that it might be possible.  I suppose it's possible.

It's a fantasy if the GOP holds onto the House, but they would fight against the plan tooth and nail even if they end up in the minority.  If the analysis is correct, it will be hard to argue the the 99% should fight it on behalf of the 1%.  I hope we get a chance to find out.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 17, 2016, 11:28:08 AM »
I just googled "North Carolina G.O.P. Building Is Firebombed" and got 947,000 hits.  Many of the major news outlets were on the first page.  The story from FOX was about Democrats raising money on behalf of the office.  What are you looking for that isn't there?

Make no mistake, nobody of any decency wants this to happen.  This goes beyond partisanship.  Whoever did it should be found and punished.  The fear that many people have is that it opens the door for similar attacks against Democratic offices or even worse given the calls that are already starting for open rebellion by some Trump supporters.

Cherry, FWIW here is an alternate view from another Forbes contributing writer with a report he wrote for the Tax Policy Institute at the Urban Center and Brookings Institute:
Two new Tax Policy Center reports quantify the dramatic contrast between the latest tax plans of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Clinton has proposed a significant tax increase on high- income households and businesses. Trump’s plan, while less ambitious than the version he released in 2015, would still largely benefit high-income households and result in a substantial boost in the federal debt.

Trump’s latest plan would reduce federal revenues by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with nearly half of the tax cuts going to the highest-income one percent of households.  Clinton, by contrast, would boost federal revenue by $1.4 trillion over the next decade, with the bottom 80 percent of households receiving tax cuts and the top one percent paying over 90 percent of the net tax increase.   
Assuming that you are in the bottom 99% along with me, her plan sounds more promising.  Since I am not a tax expert I can't independently confirm what he says, but feel free to do an analysis yourself and let us know if it is flawed.

I don't know much about it, other than it was reported by a right-wing blog site, True Pundit, and Snopes says it's unverified.  She denies it (obviously).  Do you think it's true?

Apparently he's not laughing.
He has been targeting her for years because he feels victimized by her.  I don't blame him, since he's been hiding out in a South American embassy in the heart of London for years to avoid extradition to Sweden on rape charges, and is convinced that if he comes out the US will extradite him here.  Even so, I'm still waiting for Wikileaks to release anything attacking Republicans, *any* Republican.  Not likely to happen, since Wikileaks is obviously anti-Democrat and anti-Liberal.

Everybody laughed at the time except for her because she wasn't joking.
Trump is always joking when he tells mothers to shut up their babies, when he calls on Russia to hack Clinton's emails, when he says 2A supporters should take care of her.  Funny guy, funny guy.

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security
« on: October 16, 2016, 11:30:39 AM »
This is almost too pathetically funny, but this apparently isn't the first time Trump has claimed that an election he's not winning must therefore be rigged. I read these tweets this morning by Trump about the 2012 Emmy's:

Lots of people agree that the Emmy's were a joke --got bad ratings-- no credibility!
...Emmy's telecast is way down & lowest telecast on record among young adults. Emmys have no credibilty. Should have nominated Apprentice again!
...The Emmys are all politics, that's why, despite nominations, the Apprentice never won -- even though it should have many times over.

There are tweets very similar in tone from 2013 and 2014.

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security
« on: October 16, 2016, 09:41:57 AM »
A "free hand" Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to police his own borders.

A "free hand" Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to slaughter his own non-combatant citizens.

Increase in communications and global awareness has far outpaced our ability to know what sense to make of things in far-off countries.  We have no formal authority to interfere, but it's questionable that we have the moral authority to interfere, either.  I think before we can really answer that question we have to understand why we won't even resolve our own problems:

Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They've got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 16, 2016, 06:00:27 AM »
Al, what is it exactly you think should be able to get done regarding gun control that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is stopping? What's the end game?
As the Heller dissent pointed out, the 2A does not address self-defense.  That was left to the states to decide for themselves.  Odd that Originalists like Scalia relied on cherry-picking state Constitutions and discarded drafts of the 2A to support his argument.  Not to mention that DC is not a state, so isn't covered by the 2A.

The "end game" is reasonable regulation that balances personal freedoms with public benefit, which it always has been.  Heller created a right that makes it much harder to get there.

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 16, 2016, 05:56:33 AM »
I read that article the other day, Greg, and was about to post a link to it in reply to Al's question. It does give great insight.
Read it.  I understand what he's saying and can't argue with any of it, only crawl under my bed and wait for the apocalypse that will return America to its colonial past when everybody was happy, healthy and loved their lives.

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 15, 2016, 08:06:17 PM »
Remember the thing that made George Washington so special at the time? It was that he left office peacefully. That's something that can't be taken for granted. It couldn't be taken for granted then, and it certainly can't be taken for granted now.
That is so wacko that I can't even think of a rational response.  I gather you think Obama is going to -- what?  Declare marshal law? Confiscate all weapons?  I remember a physics teacher who wrote on a test paper that the student's answer to a question was not only not right, it wasn't even wrong.  You're somewhere out in that distant mental universe circling a dense dark star.

Greg, DJQuag, I'll read it.  Thanks for suggesting it.

The Supreme Court in Heller, 5 out of 9 justices anyway, said that a city (D.C. specifically) cannot refuse to let you possess a handgun.
That doesn't contradict having commonsense laws controlling how guns are purchased, maintained and which ones are allowed.  We've had laws governing those things for centuries, and as you say a 5-4 SC ruling appears to contradict that.  Remember, it was a 5-4 ruling, not 9-0.  It could easily swing back the other way, and if it does you won't have to give up any of your guns, even if you have 100's stacked up in your basement.

Me personally,  I'm more likely to believe what she says in private when she doesn't necessarily know that she's being recorded. Much more so then a statement from her website that has been carefully polished and worded in order to draw in the maximum amount of voters.
We can assume that represents what she personally believes, but her website says what her policy position is.  Jimmy Carter said he had no conflict with his personal faith and his public duties.  Good leaders are able to keep these things from interfering; bad leaders -- which include religious conservative politicians and Trump -- can't.

Also, do we know anything about Trump's position on gun rights?  I mean, I assume he falls into the republican talking point spectrum on it, but I'm not sure.
Anybody who supports Trump has to admit that they don't really know what he actually believes or what position he would take on any particular issue when the time comes to act.  My guess is that he would drift more toward the center if elected, because there are a lot of Congressional votes in the middle.

That's a whole heap of garbage (IMO) to safeguard against a lot of "maybe".  But... seated for life.  So it IS a threat, even if I see it as a small one. 
Every important issue is loaded with "If"s.  If you want to vote your worst fears, vote Trump; he's guaranteed to scare the bejeezus out of us all if he's in the Oval Office.

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 15, 2016, 05:01:48 PM »
You wouldn't care to hazard a guess?

Is there nothing you think Obama is doing wrong that Hillary will continue doing wrong as well?

And if you can't think of anything that fits that description how about anything that a reasonable person of another political persuasion might disagree with that Obama is doing now that Hillary will continue doing as well?
Obama is fairly mainstream.  Trump is so wacko that the GOP had to build a special fringe for him to stand on, and most in the GOP are as afraid of him as Democrats are.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 30