# Do you believe Russia hacked the US election?



## Deleted User (Jan 2, 2017)

They said they respect our privacy, remember that? I dont believe everything they say since then


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Jan 2, 2017)

Yes! It's true!
Like Saddam's and Assad's chimical weapons. Like 9/11 was not an inside job. Like Pearl Harbor attack was not announced by Japanese governament.

US élite lies.


----------



## Daggot (Jan 2, 2017)

I think that it's obvious that someone out there is trying to heighten the tension between the US and Russia before Trump takes office. Why you may ask? There's a plethora of possible answers and honestly I don't know. It sure is fun to see all of the media spin fall through though.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

I'm not a fan of politics, but regardless of who would win, the other side of the political spectrum would have accused in kind. If a Democratic candidate won, the other side would accuse the same, politics are always so divided and no one can agree on anything, *sigh* Personally it doesn't matter all that much now, it's a damned if you damned if you don't, neither side is truly victorious when it comes to politics.


----------



## Deboog (Jan 2, 2017)

Russia probably hacked 2014. And 2012. And 2010. And 2008. And 2006.

America hacks them too. If you honestly believe every modern country isn't spying on every other modern country, you are an idiot. A couple years ago the US was caught wiretapping Germany: our ally. Now, whether it swung the election is another thing, and there is no way it did. Elections are too hard to corrupt.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 2, 2017)

No, it was rigged by US government officials pressured by Russian and North Korean threats.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

I just see it as a ploy to blame everyone else because the election didn't go their way, it was a subterfuge to throw a tantrum and point fingers, etc IMHO.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 2, 2017)

Hillary rigged it against Bernie, and the U.S. Government rigged it against HER for our diplomatic safety against Russia and North Korea. That's it.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> Let's get a little political here.


Shit's about to hit the fan


----------



## Elveman (Jan 2, 2017)

So... they are ready to admit that their security system is BS rather than the election was fair (to at least some extent)? Interesting.


----------



## Kliffcom (Jan 2, 2017)

If Hillary had won then they would say everything is legit. They just dont like the Trump and want to get rid of him with stuff like this. The FBI and CIA are on her site and after all that stuff that happend nobody should trust anything that they say.  Especially after they protected Hillary when she got their emails with secret information leaked and got never in legal trouble for that.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

The point is, IMHO, they're trying to  make a mess for Trump to clean up when he gets in office while they sit back laughing, you know, because Schadenfreude.  They have about three weeks to make as big of a mess as they can, there's too much corruption in any government, really.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 2, 2017)

I think that an inside source hacked the dnc, but that the Russians hacked Podesta's emails. 

Not that they think Trump will change foreign policy in their favor, but to deligitimize US democracy.


----------



## Chary (Jan 2, 2017)

Everyone hacks everyone. The USA itself has reportedly tried to influence 81 elections in recent years. So even if Russia "hacked" the DNC to reveal truth, what of it? 

Personally, I think it was the DNC insider, not a hacker, as stated by Wikileaks. The USA government and media are trying to heighten tensions with Russia, and it's unnerving. Either they're trying to muddy things up for Trump when he gets into office, or they're trying to start some sort of conflict with Russia. Neither of which can possibly be good. It's messed up.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 2, 2017)

JoostinOnline said:


> Shit's about to hit the fan


Eh nobody's gonna get super political when an admin's around ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jan 2, 2017)

No, probably not.  And I'm still unclear on what the Russians "hacked", all I keep hearing is that they hacked the "election", but that's impossible, as the election isn't a machine...so what did they "hack" (legitimate question, not sarcasm)?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

I find it incredibly entertaining to read Democrats posting about the so-called "rigged" election or the election hacks. It's funny, because they spent the better half of last year telling Trump that the election can't be rigged and that the election system is impervious to manipulation, which we all know is patently untrue, but that's besides the point.

As for the question posed, no, I don't think the Russians hacked the vote, and contrary to what you might read online, there is no evidence to support that they have. In fact, intelligence agencies are in agreement that no vote stuffing occurred. What did happen was a series of leaks that put the DNC and their candidate in a negative light, which is hardly hacking the election, it's merely delivering on Democrat's promise of a transparent establishment, except by an uninvited third-party. American intelligence agencies base their suspicions on what they call "past behaviour", not actual logs confirming cyber espionage - if they had those, it would be an international incident and a war would be declared at this point. There is no hard evidence that Russia was in any way involved in the leaks, and the source of the leaks, Wikileaks, repeatedly denied their involvement - as a non-partisan rogue news agency they have no business in steering elections either way, they merely expose secret documents that they believe the public should see.

What actually happened this election is a hard 180 degree turn. With groups like BLM around causing civil unrest by, basically, enacting acts of terror on American soil that remain unaddressed and a politically correct gestapo doing whatever it can to stifle political dissent by branding people as racists, sexists, misogynists and every other -ist in the book, or the now more popular umbrella term "alt-right" the establishment has alienated its core voting base. People are sick of being called names for merely associating with the right-wing, and I even know a couple of cases of Democrats who voted Trump specifically because the previous government has made their everyday life markedly worse. People want actual change, not just progressive ideas on a paper plate because you can't eat those. I'll admit that Clinton won the popular vote, however one look at the map will tell you exactly why the institution or the electoral college exists and why their decision was to go with Trump. The little slice of America between the two coasts can't be ruled by the handful of densely populated states on each coast - those states are nothing alike. The majority of states voted Trump, and it is only fair that he became president.

If you think that the Wikileaks unfairly leaked information that either changed people's mind on faint pretenses or simply convinced them not to vote, do note that the biased media had their own campaign against the other candidate. This election was very much the establishment versus the anti-establishment, and the latter won.


Logan Pockrus said:


> No, probably not.  And I'm still unclear on what the Russians "hacked", all I keep hearing is that they hacked the "election", but that's impossible, as the election isn't a machine...so what did they "hack" (legitimate question, not sarcasm)?


The premise is that by hacking DNC servers and releasing "misinformation" through Wikileaks they've skewed public opinion against Hillary, costing her the election. Of course that premise is stupid, but that's the idea.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jan 2, 2017)

Logan Pockrus said:


> No, probably not.  And I'm still unclear on what the Russians "hacked", all I keep hearing is that they hacked the "election", but that's impossible, as the election isn't a machine...so what did they "hack" (legitimate question, not sarcasm)?


Some places have you vote through a machine.  A lot of others use a machine to count the votes after you submit your ballot.  It's not very common to have people actually count the votes anymore.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 2, 2017)

I don't come to GBAtemp to discuss politics and I wish this wasn't on the front page pretending to be 'news'.

Every now and then GBAtemp has some garbage 'news' posts and this is one of them.

Can we keep the politics nonsense away from the front page? Thank you.


----------



## T-hug (Jan 2, 2017)

I think they'll say anything that can sound better, than believing the reality that people actually voted for Trump.


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 2, 2017)

Holy loaded responses, Batman!  Why no choice for a simple 'yes' and 'no'?


----------



## Costello (Jan 2, 2017)

Stingart said:


> I don't come to GBAtemp to discuss politics and I wish this wasn't on the front page pretending to be 'news'.
> 
> Every now and then GBAtemp has some garbage 'news' posts and this is one of them.
> 
> Can we keep the politics nonsense away from the front page? Thank you.


nope  if you aren't happy just dont read it. Or leave the site if you prefer.
because there will be more in the future.



grossaffe said:


> Holy loaded responses, Batman!  Why no choice for a simple 'yes' and 'no'?


because it's not as simple as black and white, of course... this is a vastly complicated subject that can't be reduced down to a binary response.
feel free to disclose your vote and express your opinion right here in this thread, that's what it's for


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

T-hug said:


> I think they'll say anything that can sound better, than believing the reality that people actually voted for Trump.


I think those are two different things that should be thought as they are, different things.
For the one side, Trump won, and I understand a lot of Americans are butthurt with this and don't want to accept reality.
But also, it happens to be another side, one that is harmful for their society, and it is that nothing is being taken seriously because people on the one side say BS like "no, that is not my president, bleh, can't listen to the assholes that voted him", and people on the other side say BS like "oh, those butthurt guys are just talking conspiracy because they are butthurt, don't take them seriously, bleh!".

In my eyes, that is plain stupidity on both sides, instead of being grown ups, accepting reality, moving on, and functioning like a fucking society again, listening to each other, working for the common good of yourselfs, solving problems, etc.
But well, that is not politics talk at all, it is just the point of view of an outsider, of how ridicule that behaviour looks from far away.

PS: How is it different? Trump won and that is not to be questioned. But in the other side, if Russia actually hacked it, and it has the power to vulnerate US security and influence future events as they want you should work together to make it not happen again, or you will be Russia's puppet, IMHO.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jan 2, 2017)

I voted for the latter, because I just don't know.  I guess a way to potentially find out is to hack russian government servers and look for any evidence that point to an attack. Though this probably is not the smartest of ideas.


----------



## mightymuffy (Jan 2, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Holy loaded responses, Batman!  Why no choice for a simple 'yes' and 'no'?


Heh, yeah there's a simple one word response to the question, and that is 'no' from me. No further explanation necessary, 'no' sums it all up.... but I can't even vote that due to those choices up there! 

A large proportion of the US population so blindly follows whatever they watch or read from their media that this is the only reason a question like this is allowed to exist... here in Blighty if the remain voters tried to use a statement like that, following Brexit, the general public would've laughed their tits off and replied 'dont be fukkin stupid'


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> nope  if you aren't happy just dont read it. Or leave the site if you prefer.
> because there will be more in the future.
> 
> because it's not as simple as black and white, of course... this is a vastly complicated subject that can't be reduced down to a binary response.
> feel free to disclose your vote and express your opinion right here in this thread, that's what it's for


I didn't ask for only 'yes' and 'no'.  But all of the options for 'yes' and 'no' that you provided also come with baggage attached to them.  'yes', 'no', 'maybe', and 'I don't know' covers the entire spectrum of the grayscale.  But these 'yes, and <insert specific assertion>' and 'no, and <insert specific assertion>' removes all of the ranges of 'yes' and 'no' that don't agree with the baggage you attached to them.  As this is a thread for discussion, there's plenty of room for people to add their reasoning to their 'yes', 'no', or 'somewhere in the gray' poll responses.


----------



## matthi321 (Jan 2, 2017)

no it was the aliens


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

matthi321 said:


> no it was the aliens


No shit! Don't tell me you caught the hacking signal with your butt antenna?


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 2, 2017)

matthi321 said:


> no it was the aliens


Well the Russians would be aliens to the US, wouldn't they?

* Definition of alien *

belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing :  strange 
relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government :  foreign


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 2, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Well the Russians would be aliens to the US, wouldn't they?
> 
> * Definition of alien *
> 
> ...


It was the _Mexicans _then.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

VinLark said:


> It was the _Mexicans _then.


I think you forgot to put half your signature inside a spoiler tag (I mean, it's huge)


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 2, 2017)

VinLark said:


> It was the _Mexicans _then.


Why?  Is it because they support Trump's job-creation program in building that wall?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 2, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Why?  Is it because they support Trump's job-creation program in building that wall?


No, it's was just a joke on the word alien as immigrant and a reference to Donald Trump's wall. Wasn't meant to be taken seriously.



sarkwalvein said:


> I think you forgot to put half your signature inside a spoiler tag (I mean, it's huge)


There. Better?


----------



## LittleFlame (Jan 2, 2017)

No... just god no this is so unbelievably stupid


----------



## Lord M (Jan 2, 2017)

No, because FBi and CIA (Chinese Intelligence Agency) works for Rockefeller and Rotschild, and they are jews-americans, and always they simply and purely decide who are the next president every time.
The vote is merely a joke, a show for the masses, to make them think they still have a decision-making power, but people cant - or wont- accept this truth...


----------



## DavidRO99 (Jan 2, 2017)

ofc its true, look, we russians really like fucking up stuff, dont tell anyone, but in 2019, WW 3 is gonna start!


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 2, 2017)

VinLark said:


> No, it's was just a joke on the word alien as immigrant and a reference to Donald Trump's wall. Wasn't meant to be taken seriously.


I was playing along... :/


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

WW3 FTW! All those high-end fighter planes have been just for show for a very long time already!!! /s
(PS: Who doesn't like to fuck stuff anyway?)


----------



## koim (Jan 2, 2017)

Honnestly ? A country where every vote is not equal has no right to complain about anyone "hijacking" their elections.
Fix your own mess first before taking it out on someone else.


----------



## lincruste (Jan 2, 2017)

I am not a USA citizen so I won't participate to the poll, but arguing  wether or not Russia did hack US elections is irrelevant: the point is US intelligence agencies now officially admit it's possible.
The real point is: will the USA citizen still allow electronic vote to please a few government contractors or will they take back their leadership ?


----------



## Chary (Jan 2, 2017)

koim said:


> Honnestly ? A country where every vote is not equal has no right to complain about anyone "hijacking" their elections.
> Fix your own mess first before taking it out on someone else.


Are you talking about the Electoral College? I don't see an issue with how it works. Perhaps it's dated, but it's surely better than just directly tallying the votes together. If we didn't have the Electoral College, California and Texas would dictate how our government runs. With it, the ideas and wants of people in smaller states like Ohio, the Carolinas and Utah are actually weighted fairly and evenly against people in larger states and cities like Chicago IL, Houston TX, or Los Angeles CA who have entirely different needs, and could screw over the smaller cities if we just counted the votes "equally".


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 2, 2017)

Stingart said:


> I don't come to GBAtemp to discuss politics and I wish this wasn't on the front page pretending to be 'news'.
> 
> Every now and then GBAtemp has some garbage 'news' posts and this is one of them.
> 
> Can we keep the politics nonsense away from the front page? Thank you.


It is related to video games.
We can't play them during and possibly after World War 3.

If they had evidence, don't you think they would release them? You don't need to know more.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 2, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> I was playing along... :/


Oh...um....whoops .-.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It is related to video games.
> We can't play them during and possibly after World War 3.
> 
> If they had evidence, don't you think they would release them? You don't need to know more.


Please, I am quite sure the one thing that may still be working in WW3 evacuation bunkers is video games.
Don't expect new titles and kiss online bye bye, but probably old video games would be your only entertainment under those fallout infested skies.
(on the good side you could generate your power through radioactive decay)


----------



## Chary (Jan 2, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Please, I am quite sure the one thing that may still be working in WW3 evacuation bunkers is video games.
> Don't expect new titles and kiss online bye bye, but probably old video games would be your only entertainment under those fallout infested skies.
> (on the good side you could generate your power through radioactive decay)


Now I'm just imagining a crazed bunch of cooped up people in a bomb shelter all huddled around a single NES and CRT, blowing on their one leftover cartridge of Mario/Duck Hunt, desperate to make it work.


----------



## LittleFlame (Jan 2, 2017)

Chary said:


> Now I'm just imagining a crazed bunch of cooped up people in a bomb shelter all huddled around a single NES and CRT, blowing on their one leftover cartridge of Mario/Duck Hunt, desperate to make it work.


2 years in they go on a scavenging hunt, not for food or water... but for a WiiU with smash


----------



## Costello (Jan 2, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It is related to video games.
> We can't play them during and possibly after World War 3.
> 
> If they had evidence, don't you think they would release them? You don't need to know more.


dont know if it's related to video games, but it's related to hacking, which is a large part of what our site is about 
and no I think it's possible to have evidence you can't release to the public.
like I said if you had an inside informant and couldnt blow their cover, or something like that


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

Has the USA altered and/or influenced foreign elections and political decisions in the past? Sure. (Think specially cold war times and Latin America, e.g.)
Has Russia altered and/or influenced foreign elections and political decisions in the past? Sure also.
Is it possible that Russia could influence or alter (why not hack) elections or political decisions in the USA? Sure, the other way around is also a possibility, just look at the past.

Actually, almost sure it happens all the time.


----------



## Enteking (Jan 2, 2017)

The election was not hacked but the Democratic party likely was. It is impossible to say who did it, it could have been any state or individual on the planet. Only the truth did influence the election result even though the press was extremely biased against Trump with 99.9% negative and one-sided articles about him. This is the much bigger problem because if you cannot believe the press anymore, all democracy is lost because it becomes impossible to make an informed decision.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 2, 2017)

matthi321 said:


> no it was the aliens


Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what they're gonna say once they can't prove anything with regards to Russia.


----------



## PRAGMA (Jan 2, 2017)




----------



## Sliter (Jan 2, 2017)

I bet some stupid movie about this are coming, like that sheety about sony being hacked by north korea 




ShinyMK said:


>


well so the news still about games? XD


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 2, 2017)

I would not believe 1 word that this regime says!  Hell, Obama has never told the truth in his life...

The Left are afraid to admit they lost!
So what do they do? they do the only thing they know how to do and that is to lie without a lick of evidence.
So instead of admitting defeat, their so called "morally superior" intelligence will do whatever it takes not to relenquish power.
So after they tried everything from recount, obsurd accusations toward Trump, and 12/19/16 when the elector made it official, the only thing 
left to do is brainwash people into believing that Russia was responsible for the DNC emails,  But in the meantime A Russian Ambassador was gunned down by a Cop, and a plane with a butt load or high ranking Russian officials crashed and killing them all, and when that didn't even work, they accuse them of something entirely different. 
The Democrats will do whatever they can to stay in power and with that I believe, and you can mark my words, save this post or whatever, If Russia does not respond in a threatning manner Jan 15th, Obama will cast the first nuke so he doesnt look like a liar, while this was his intention all along, to remain in office under martial law.  Thats why he racially, religeously, and whatever word to use for diving male and female is.  DIVIDE AND CONQUER!  ALL HAIL KING OBAMA...


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 2, 2017)

yeah, thats exactly what i want to read about on the frontpage of my videogame/homebrew website. good job guys. good job. this also does not qualify as news because its not reporting any news. this is, at best, a blog post.

and no, they didn't hack the election as in, manipulated vote counts, but they clearly went a step further than just hacking to gain informational advantage (which all countries do to some degree) , but released information with what should be understood as clear intent to influence a faraway countries future politics.
a type of cyber attack that would probably only work on us-voters to begin with.

heck, the cia could  leak crystal clear video-evidence to every russian with an internet connection, showing that putin regularily raids russian villages to murder and rape little children and the russians wouldn't stop electing him.

as for evidence, what do you think constitutes evidence when it comes to cyber-crimes? finding code thats been used in past russian attacks and ips that point to russia is about as close as you can get. and of course, these agencies have things they can't openly tell the public. they're secret agencies and doing that would compromise their work in the future.
if they told you about informants within the highest ranks of russian government, that highest rank would probably die in a planecrash the next week to be replaced. (a little overtop, but they'd all be watched closely until being found out)


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> heck, the cia could  leak crystal clear video-evidence to every russian with an internet connection, showing that putin regularily raids russian villages to murder and rape little children and the russians wouldn't stop electing him.


Your faith on the power of will and determination of the people of Russia astonishes me.
That said, yeah the times are boring and this ends up on the frontpage.
I suppose we will have to wait until January 12th for something really newsworthy.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 2, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Your faith on the power of will and determination of the people of Russia astonishes me.
> That said, yeah the times are boring and this ends up on the frontpage.
> I suppose we will have to wait until January 12th for something really newsworthy.


its half them having an almost religious belief in the man as the one thing making russia great again and half me believing that putin would actually fake election results if he needed it.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jan 2, 2017)

Stingart said:


> I don't come to GBAtemp to discuss politics and I wish this wasn't on the front page pretending to be 'news'.
> 
> Every now and then GBAtemp has some garbage 'news' posts and this is one of them.
> 
> Can we keep the politics nonsense away from the front page? Thank you.



Dont be an ingrate. This man owns the website,if he wants to post about his new pet goldfish on the front page then its his right.


----------



## Jao Chu (Jan 2, 2017)

Lel. Are these the excuses libruls are resorting to for losing the election now?


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 2, 2017)

Jao Chu said:


> Lel. Are these the excuses libruls are resorting to for losing the election now?


Yep. And this is probably just the beginning of even more bullshit they'll be making up.


----------



## Jao Chu (Jan 2, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> Yep. And this is probably just the beginning of even more bullshit they'll be making up.



They are sore losers in every definition of the term. Just rollover and admit defeat guys! You had a good 8 year run. But the murican people have spoken!


----------



## Prans (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> nope  if you aren't happy just dont read it. Or leave the site if you prefer.
> because there will be more in the future.


I think it's refreshing to have such news sporadically to remind ourselves that we're living in a real world (unless we're part of a simulation, but that's another matter) and having the opinion of gamers on such matters can be insightful as well.

As for the topic under discussion, it just seems like people (and the general attention-seeking media) will just throw every conspiracy theory possible to shirk the election results, often contradicting themselves, as pointed out by other readers before. Also, countries have been influencing other countries' elections for like always but unsupported claims of hacking might be a new low (unless they have a *really *good reason not to provide one).



 
_Disclaimer to prevent butthurt responses: 
I added this meme only because it's funny, even if it might not be 100% relevant. No offense meant, or meant, whatever._​


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 2, 2017)

Prans said:


> I think it's refreshing to have such news sporadically to remind ourselves that we're living in a real world (unless we're part of a simulation, but that's another matter) and having the opinion of gamers on such matters can be insightful as well.


I agree. And discussion is good. As long as GBATemp ASKS US to discuss it, I have no issue with it at all.


----------



## Prans (Jan 2, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> I agree. And discussion is good. As long as GBATemp ASKS US to discuss it, I have no issue with it at all.


Most posts are open for commenting/discussion and we encourage it, as long it is healthy!


----------



## PRAGMA (Jan 2, 2017)

No offence, but ahh shouldnt this be Off-Topic and its really not "news" more of a discussion. I dont care, its your website just wondering.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 2, 2017)

Ever since this whole thing of "russian hacker electoral '16" came out I know it was just another one of the DNC's propagation games against the thinking American people.


----------



## Costello (Jan 2, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Ever since this whole thing of "russian hacker electoral '16" came out I know it was just another one of the DNC's propagation games against the thinking American people.
> View attachment 73495​


that's downright hillarious


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 2, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Ever since this whole thing of "russian hacker electoral '16" came out I know it was just another one of the DNC's propagation games against the thinking American people.
> View attachment 73495​


Let me guess, that first article is now removed?


----------



## Costello (Jan 2, 2017)

I was also hoping for some technical insight here... does anyone with sufficient technical skills reckon there is any evidence supporting the russian hacking claims? because I sure couldn't find any, but I am not the best at this game. If anyone's got something please speak up


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> that's downright hillarious


It shows how untrustworthy the "Democratic" Party (and the majority of the American left as a whole) really is.


----------



## LittleFlame (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> that's downright hillarious





Spoiler


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jan 2, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Ever since this whole thing of "russian hacker electoral '16" came out I know it was just another one of the DNC's propagation games against the thinking American people.
> View attachment 73495​


The first article talks about actual hacking of the results, which hasn't been claimed by the government as far as I know (in the OP a clickbaity news was mentioned, but that's not coming from the goverment). The second article refers to the manipulation of the public opinion, which is what the intelligence agencies claimed (that Russia supposedly paid hackers to hack into the DNC and send all the dirt for Wikileaks to release).
I believe the Wikileaks documents really did manipulate public perception (dirt on only one candidate was released, so obviously she came out as the most corrupted).
Whether it was done by the Russians, I can't know. There's no public evidence. I suppose intelligence agencies know better.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> I was also hoping for some technical insight here... does anyone with sufficient technical skills reckon there is any evidence supporting the russian hacking claims? because I sure couldn't find any, but I am not the best at this game. If anyone's got something please speak up


Arstechnica published an article after the intelligence reports became public, breaking down exactly why they have no evidence with some security experts.

http://arstechnica.com/security/201...016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/


----------



## Costello (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Arstechnica published an article after the intelligence reports became public, breaking down exactly why they have no evidence with some security experts.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/security/201...016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/


I actually decided to start this thread after reading this article. If you read my post carefully you'll find that I inserted a link to the report they mentionned. As I said in my original post, there is literally nothing in that report.
So if anyone is aware of any other form of evidence may they speak up


----------



## RustInPeace (Jan 2, 2017)

It seems like just making up an excuse, the electoral college chose Trump, twice, enough to say that he's our next president. It's not like he's the first person to lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote, and time removed from the sad result, it seemed like more of the disarray of the Democrats that this bozo won the presidency.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 2, 2017)

Aurora Wright said:


> I believe the Wikileaks documents really did manipulate public perception (dirt on only one candidate was released, so obviously she came out as the most corrupted.)


I guarantee you that if some major secretively-held dirt came out on Trump that it would have been used against him by _everybody_, including his supporters.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 2, 2017)

Prans said:


> I think it's refreshing to have such news sporadically to remind ourselves that we're living in a real world (unless we're part of a simulation, but that's another matter) and having the opinion of gamers on such matters can be insightful as well.
> 
> As for the topic under discussion, it just seems like people (and the general attention-seeking media) will just throw every conspiracy theory possible to shirk the election results, often contradicting themselves, as pointed out by other readers before. Also, countries have been influencing other countries' elections for like always but unsupported claims of hacking might be a new low (unless they have a *really *good reason not to provide one).
> 
> ...



mind quoting a few of those contradictions so we can take them appart?

also, every country that ever suspected their elections and crap be influenced by american politics or hacks had THEIR media outlets lose their shit too.
of course fox and nbc don't make much of a deal out of this when it comes to foreign countries. the same way you hear about every plane crashing with us citizens, but not like the dozens of planes crashing each year with asian or middle eastern passengers.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



hobbledehoy899 said:


> Ever since this whole thing of "russian hacker electoral '16" came out I know it was just another one of the DNC's propagation games against the thinking American people.
> View attachment 73495​



two different journalists writing different articles? HOW CONTRADICTORY!


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 2, 2017)

I have not read any analysis nor gone looking for any evidence yet, however this is a subject that fascinates me as it is a meeting of hacking, psychology and voting/artificial human systems that are basically games (in the game theory sense) for things. I don't mind doing things in real time if I have to but for personal interest I prefer to go when the dust has settled a bit more.

An article worth reading as it covers some things which actually happened in South America
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/
http://fusion.net/story/287086/this-is-the-scariest-sentence-you-will-ever-read-about-the-internet/

There are some more safeguards in the US that might make certain things there less effective but it is not like general computer security is much higher, individual organisations at high level might do better with the pac nonsense and general state/county led operations result in (volunteer operations on donated/borrowed equipment, overseen by those that maybe lack technical skills and so on) and the like certainly does not add up to impervious security.

Also videos for all based on things I have seen discussed
Electoral college, guy has a few other videos on the subject too



Some on electronic voting and general means of voter fraud


On "you lost" then OK so a two party system is a thing in the US but from what I have seen it has fractured parties somewhat. To that end I certainly do not envy the party whip (another member of the party that is responsible for making the individual party members toe the party line).

I would probably first have a look to see what Russia has to gain by doing this. Assuming it is mainly a presidential election one looks to see what power the president actually has. Americans seem to actually respect the office where outside it the president/prime minister/premier/chancellor/whatever is just some wanker that heads the government. Equally going by what I have seen in recent years it is an office with some power but hamstrung in a whole variety of interesting ways. If the US president was closer to dictator levels of control then I would be terrified but in this instance what basic physics or economics does not take care of will probably be sorted by


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> I was also hoping for some technical insight here... does anyone with sufficient technical skills reckon there is any evidence supporting the russian hacking claims? because I sure couldn't find any, but I am not the best at this game. If anyone's got something please speak up


jesus, do you think any of the cia-kiddies that come through this place have any business in tracking foreign hacking attempts on us information systems?


----------



## XDel (Jan 2, 2017)

What does it matter what we believe. Regardless if it is true or not, it does not stop the herd from acting like a herd and doing crazy things.

Anyhoo. Why is this front page news on a gaming site?!


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 2, 2017)

XDel said:


> What does it matter what we believe.


Who said it does? Personally I like to hear what others think.


----------



## Costello (Jan 2, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> jesus, do you think any of the cia-kiddies that come through this place have any business in tracking foreign hacking attempts on us information systems?


what I'm saying is maybe there are other articles on other sites that haven't got enough attention.


----------



## Issac (Jan 2, 2017)

I believe that some hacking by Russian hackers have been performed. I don't believe that it affected anything in anyone's favor. As always, it's probably only "can we do it? Yes we could. Fix your security, morons."

Why Russians? Cause they have plenty of advanced hackers. 

I don't believe there is any conspiracy that some Russians want one or the other to win and such. And wasn't it that head of FBI who seemed to do everything in his power to throw dirt at Hillary at the most inconvenient of times? Are the FBI and CIA now making up hacking attacks to make Democrats look better?

Nah. I think there were attacks. I don't think they affected anything, just left traces.


----------



## XDel (Jan 2, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> Who said it does? Personally I like to hear what others think.



After a few decades, it gets old. Nearly everyone is tapped into the main stream, therefore everyone is thinking, feeling, and discussing what is in that vacuum, and not what it without. 

It grows rather dull and predictable after a while, unless of course you want to chance a game of prophecy every now and again.


----------



## AlanJohn (Jan 2, 2017)

Starting a political discussion on an italian gameboy hacking forum is always a great idea.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 2, 2017)

XDel said:


> After a few decades, it gets old. Nearly everyone is tapped into the main stream, therefore everyone is thinking, feeling, and discussing what is in that vacuum, and not what it without.
> 
> It grows rather dull and predictable after a while, unless of course you want to chance a game of prophecy every now and again.


I would agree with you, I was expecting to see "YES RUSKIS HAXKED ELEKTION WI`T VODKA LUNIX" votes winning the poll by far. That seems to be mainstream opinion, but since people here obviously think very differently, it's pretty interesting.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 2, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> Who said it does? Personally I like to hear what others think.


but why? you know whatever anyone here thinks has literally no basis other than gutfeeling and political orientation.

there is no proof for or against this to be found on newswebsites or online in general.
there is no valid proof for or against it to be found in discussing this among random online strangers.
especially not if its also interrupted by trolls every other post.

if people don't want to believe the industry experts, there is literally nothing that would ever sway their minds other than russia openly admitting it had government sanctioned plans to help trump in a close race by a hard to track but very specific information leak.

so whats the point?


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jan 2, 2017)

AlanJohn said:


> Starting a political discussion on an italian gameboy hacking forum is always a great idea.


Leave GBArl alone please.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 2, 2017)

Issac said:


> As always, it's probably only "can we do it? Yes we could. Fix your security, morons."





> Nah. I think there were attacks. I don't think they affected anything, just left traces.


In the modern world of political tension I would say that this is the most unrealistic thing I've heard, any country who wanted to hack an election of this scale for their own gain and found such glaring security holes doing so would have hacked said election in a moment's notice.


Shadowfied said:


> VODKA LUNIX


Where can I get that distro???


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 2, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Where can I get that distro???



It's maintained by that russian guy, Linyos Torovoltos I believe. Google his name and you should find it.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 2, 2017)

Shadowfied said:


> It's maintained by that russian guy, Linyos Torovoltos I believe. Google his name and you should find it.


Oh shit, it's an illegally pirated "fork" of Microsoft's own Xenix that adds every last bit of software YOU need to become an elite russian hacker electoral '16 und maor!


----------



## DeoNaught (Jan 2, 2017)

but why would they hack the elections?
I think if anyone would do this, it would be china, because they are closer maybe,
maybe Russians were like Oh shit we cant let Hillary win


----------



## SaffronXL (Jan 2, 2017)

I'm disappointed noone here seems to be pointing to history and saying that it's not a question of whether or not they meddled with the election, but whether said meddling was justified. The Clintons took an extremely anti-Russian stance after the collapse of the USSR, and ensured that Russian wealth shifted away from the government and people of Russia and into the hands of a few wealthy US-friendly businessmen. Vladimir Putin's appeal to Russians is that he wrested the Russian economy away from these wealthy outside business interests and put the power back into the hands of elected Russian officials. 

Another Clinton in the White House would have threatened and fractured Putin's power base, and standing by and allowing that to happen without trying to cause a different outcome would have caused the world's most powerful man to look weak. It's not a question if Russians hacked DNC resources to weaken Clinton's campaign, they did, and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics knows it's more absurd to claim that Russia would just sit idly by as the US elected Russia's number 1 enemy to our highest office.

The question isn't if, it's whether it was justified or if it had any effect on the outcome. I'm inclined to say yes to the former, and maybe to the latter.

I advise watching "Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States" on Netflix for historical context.The 2016 elections are obviously not covered, but it does a solid job of explaining why Putin and Russia would do ANYTHING to keep another Clinton out of the White House.


----------



## duffmmann (Jan 2, 2017)

I was certain Russia would hack this election before it even happened. So when it came to light that they may have hacked it I wasn't surprised for a moment.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 2, 2017)

Do Americans even realize what the revealed secrets are about?
All I could hear for months from US media was "the Russians did it, the Russians did it!" 

Did what?

Imagine it's proven Putin rigged the Russian election and all the Russian media talks about is "The Americans did it!"
Not even the Russian media (RT is not all of Russian media, RT is for the English-speaking world) is that bad.
Something to reflect on.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 2, 2017)

With a witness, there is no proof so I cannot argue with that. I do not care about the politics for they are the corruptions.


----------



## Bubsy Bobcat (Jan 2, 2017)

This is some great front page video game news right here.


----------



## evandixon (Jan 2, 2017)

There is no evidence to indicate the election was hacked.  However, the DNC was hacjed and we've known about it for months.  Clinton committed purgery to make it less of a problem than it was, revealing further evidence of her untrustworthyness, and the leaks revealed more of her true character.  Meanwhile many people want to forgive her and make her president.  Even if the leaks were fake, she's guilty of purgery, and since the case was recently reopened, this could have resulted in her impeachment and removal from office if she were made president.

I'm not too fond of Trump, his temperment and business conflit-of-interests bother me, but the media is really giving him a hard time.  Attributing meaning to a 6 point star and hounding him on mispelling a word by a single letter (a mistake I could easily make) among other stupid things are ridiculous.  It's not just the news agencies, but the people too.  Stop panicking, it's not going to be as bad as you think (the other two branches are there for a reason; on top of that, his stated plans like overturning unconstitutional executive orders and fixing the healthcare mess actually sound good).  Stop the "not my president" BS, it just shows how much of a baby you are (you lost, get over it). And above all, stop making me defend Trump!


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 2, 2017)

Bubsy Bobcat said:


> This is some great front page video game news right here.


We're living Bubsy 7.


----------



## DeoNaught (Jan 2, 2017)

SaffronXL said:


> I'm disappointed noone here seems to be pointing to history and saying that it's not a question of whether or not they meddled with the election, but whether said meddling was justified. The Clintons took an extremely anti-Russian stance after the collapse of the USSR, and ensured that Russian wealth shifted away from the government and people of Russia and into the hands of a few wealthy US-friendly businessmen. Vladimir Putin's appeal to Russians is that he wrested the Russian economy away from these wealthy outside business interests and put the power back into the hands of elected Russian officials.
> 
> Another Clinton in the White House would have threatened and fractured Putin's power base, and standing by and allowing that to happen without trying to cause a different outcome would have caused the world's most powerful man to look weak. It's not a question if Russians hacked DNC resources to weaken Clinton's campaign, they did, and anyone with a basic knowledge of world politics knows it's more absurd to claim that Russia would just sit idly by as the US elected Russia's number 1 enemy to our highest office.
> 
> ...


 so they WOULD hack the elections to keep Hillary out of the white house?
so in my last comment I was correct


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jan 2, 2017)

XDel said:


> What does it matter what we believe. Regardless if it is true or not, it does not stop the herd from acting like a herd and doing crazy things.
> 
> Anyhoo. Why is this front page news on a gaming site?!


Because you are a liberal.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 2, 2017)

Maluma said:


> Because you are a liberal.


Liberals are so inclusive they literally don't care about themselves.


----------



## SaffronXL (Jan 2, 2017)

DeoNaught said:


> so they WOULD hack the elections to keep Hillary out of the white house?
> so in my last comment I was correct


They definitely would, regardless of who she was running against. This is personal for Russia. I don't think China had much at stake in this election.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 2, 2017)

azoreseuropa said:


> With a witness, there is no proof so I cannot argue with that.


Witnesses are terrible for evidence though.
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm



SaffronXL said:


> I'm disappointed noone here seems to be pointing to history and saying that it's not a question of whether or not they meddled with the election, but whether said meddling was justified.



For an outside state actor to meddle via broadly illegal means (and computer hacking would count, as opposed to a state maybe donating to a party or doing some advertising which could be illegal in one place but not another and up for some measure of debate) in an election, much less a leader one, is pretty bad from a diplomatic standpoint. Any international law governing this is well outside my field so I am not sure where it falls on the acts of war scale compared to various acts of economic sabotage (think false currency and maybe certain types of market manipulation), however it can hardly be said to be just playing the game. Indeed I would have a hard time buying it as an act of protest against sanctions or something.
To that end people starting from the position that it can not be justified and thus we have to consider if it happened, and what happened, and maybe how much effect it might have had if something did happen, is probably going to be the default one.


----------



## SaffronXL (Jan 2, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> ...is pretty bad from a diplomatic standpoint.


No kidding. Welcome to the world of realpolitik.


----------



## ceelo (Jan 2, 2017)

Whether it was true or not it doesn't matter because on december 19, the electoral votes voted again. And they voted trump in, again. So... It's a non issue now.


----------



## SaffronXL (Jan 2, 2017)

ceelo said:


> Whether it was true or not it doesn't matter because on december 19, the electoral votes voted again. And they voted trump in, again. So... It's a non issue now.


Retard post of the year


----------



## oji (Jan 2, 2017)

Comrade Obama has been disclosed & will be sent back to Russia.


----------



## Jonna (Jan 2, 2017)

A political discussion featured on the front page news of a video game site. This will go well.

The politics of video games are horrendous enough at times, never mind real politics. I'd rather take my break to visiting this forum finding out about gaming politics at least, instead of world politics. I get enough of those blasted into my face offline.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 2, 2017)

ceelo said:


> Whether it was true or not it doesn't matter because on december 19, the electoral votes voted again. And they voted trump in, again. So... It's a non issue now.


Depending upon what was done there could well be provisions in law to force certain things to happen. Also how does a potential action on this scale become a non issue because the results have happened? Arguing that seems to go against all law everywhere, that being doing (or planning/attempting to do in some situations) a deed that goes against a law tends to warrant investigation and actions/sanctions taken after the fact. Likewise if something bad has happened you might want to prevent it happening again and thus you really do want to investigate it.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 2, 2017)

The (alleged) corruption of the South Korean president would not change at all, even if the data had been revealed by the North Korean president himself. 
I hope all governments would reveal each other's corrupt deeds. People worldwide would benefit.
Normally this would be the job of the media but the media has clearly become the extended arm of the government or at least of a certain group within it.


----------



## romanaOne (Jan 2, 2017)

GBATemp's poll correctly predicted the Trump catastrophe. So much for the experts. The US is a country half full of racists, sexists, knuckle-draggers, and superstitious idiots who think the planet is 6000 years old and that magic is real.

Let's have more GBATemp polls about uncertain future events and see how often GBATemp gets it right. This could have been a one off.

Enjoy your bread and circuses.



Jonna said:


> A political discussion featured on the front page news of a video game site. This will go well.
> 
> The politics of video games are horrendous enough at times, never mind real politics. I'd rather take my break to visiting this forum finding out about gaming politics at least, instead of world politics. I get enough of those blasted into my face offline.


----------



## xBleedingSoulx (Jan 2, 2017)

Well, something has to explain how Trump got elected.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> So why do they keep going on about this?



My guess is they wish to use it as leverage in talks with Putin, and it has very little to actually do with the US elections. It seems to me that it's rarely ever about that thing they publicly say and rather more of how they can leverage the populace attitude...though with trump, who knows. It's a whole new world now. Perhaps it's as plain and simple as planting the seed for an argument about legitimacy later down the road? 

Though "hacking" the election by...leaking emails from government officials that just prove what we already know about how our system works? When did we stop calling it whistle-blowing? When the media stopped being paradigms of ethical journalism would be my guess. I dunno, I think it probably would have gone better had there been leaks of the republicans as well. Or if the media wasn't run by a bunch of ratings-driven sales people.


----------



## Pluupy (Jan 2, 2017)

Daggot said:


> I think that it's obvious that someone out there is trying to heighten the tension between the US and Russia before Trump takes office. Why you may ask? There's a plethora of possible answers and honestly I don't know. It sure is fun to see all of the media spin fall through though.


It's simple really. It's all a sinister plot to thrust the world back into the Cold War. If there was competition, then scientists would once again be heavily government funded and all sorts of new technologies would arise and advance human society. Through globalization, the world would follow in the footsteps of the United States and Russia then we'll all be traveling space by the year 2100. 

Car manufacturers will only make automatics, electric cars, and most factories re-purposed to build their brand of spaceships. Fossil fuels will be used for nothing more than third-world power and retro vehicles. Everyone will wear smart eye contact lens that deliver information about what's in front of you faster than a google search. Auto-translating ear implants realizing the rebirth of the tower of Babel. Beverly Hills will become just another middle-class neighborhood as the rich will move to space real estate. Materials no longer a problem due to asteroid mining. New issues arise as robot technology replaces menial labor jobs of the old. Countries rushing to space to keep up with the economic boom. China's people use this opportunity to resume the plight of the tiananmen square protests and finally achieve true capitalism. Health care becomes nearly free as doctors and nurses are no longer needed and every home has their own auto-doctor robot, providing accurate diagnosis and fast-melting medication gummies that don't cause addiction and respond quickly. 

I haven't had anything to eat today.


----------



## Keith_Loving (Jan 2, 2017)

I absolutely believe the Russians did interfere with the results of the US elections.  All of the polls prior to election day had Hilary Clinton in the lead by 6 or 7 percentage points.  All of the legitimate polls that I know of had Clinton in the lead, based solely upon surveys conducted prior to the election.  So how could the end result have changed?  It's because the people didn't vote him in and the Russians interfered.

Furthermore, the states along the West Coast, showed overwhelming support for Clinton.  However, Trump had already won the electoral vote prior to the voting polls closing in Pacific/Western Time zone (CA, NV, OR, WA, HI).  Hence, when the Russians knew they were successful hacking the end result, they ended their hacking efforts along the west coast since Trump had already won by that point.  You heard me right, the president was already elected prior to all the polls closing across the country.  Sorry west coast, but we don't even need to count your votes because Trump won.  That is why the states along the west coast shows Clinton winning those states, it is because by that point the winner was essentially already determined.  The Russians backed off, and allowed the true votes to come thru for the states along the West Coast (CA, NV, OR, WA, HI).

It is very obvious, there is a greater force at play here, greater than the peoples vote.  Look at the relationship between Trump and Putin.  Strange?  Historically. Russia and US are not allies.  But there is a very unique friendship between Trump and Putin.  Just watch how these two are interacting with each other by ways of public talk.

I am absolutely convinced the Russians interfered with the election results and it PISSES me off!  This is an attack against America and our democracy.

Ever hear of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria)?  Ever hear of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)?  Do you realize they too was celebrating Trumps win?  It is because they understand Trump is a complete noob and clueless on most important issues concerning America's safety/security.  Trump isn't even concerned about getting his daily national security briefings.  This is to be done daily however Trump has only had like 3 briefings so far.  This is the same bull crap that George Bush did prior to the 911 attacks on America.  Not taking daily National security briefings, and next thing you know you have already been attacked.

The average Joe just doesn't know how much our government really does for us, and now that Trump is in, America is hurting at the top.  Excuse how passionate I am about this topic.  But I am not sitting on the fence on this issue like many people do.  I've taken a side on the issue like it or not.  I pray Pence will take care of all things Trump isn't.

Trump wants an arms race.  Little does he know an arms race is a lot like sex.  Building nuclear or atomic weaponry is the "foreplay".  Setting one of the nuclear or atomic bombs off is the "orgasm".  An arms race doesn't end/cease until they have actually detonated them, with many lives lost.

Trump is routinely found to be the butt of all nightly comedy shows.  There is a reason for this!  Trump get off your twitter and start focusing on your job at hand for Christ sake!   Don't worry about Alex Baldwin and his Trump impressions about yourself on SNL.  Do your job, and attend your daily security news briefings!  Listen to them when they have an issue to report, and don't just say, "I don't know, maybe you're making this up".  Stop behaving like a clown!

KL


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 2, 2017)

xBleedingSoulx said:


> Well, something has to explain how Trump got elected.


That one's simple.  He ran against Hillary.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

xBleedingSoulx said:


> Well, something has to explain how Trump got elected.



Easy, there had to be another candidate running against Hillary, so...but the fact we let ourselves have end up with only having these two candidates to vote from says a lot about this country.  People are bitter that it didn't go their way, now they know how others felt for the past eight years *shrug*.

Many told others to "get over it" when Obama was in office since 2008, and now it's their turn to tell that to the opposite party.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Julian Assange made it clear that the Russians were *not* the source of the Wikileaks.

This is Seth Rich, who was probably the source.






And even if the Russians did hack the DNC emails, they didn't make them write the horrible smarmy corrupt shit that permeated the pages of every single email those criminal assholes sent.  On the offchance it was Russia, all I have to say is *Thank you* Comrades for saving our country.


----------



## Shadowfied (Jan 2, 2017)

Keith_Loving said:


> I absolutely believe the Russians did interfere with the results of the US elections.  All of the polls prior to election day had Hilary Clinton in the lead by 6 or 7 percentage points.  All of the legitimate polls that I know of had Clinton in the lead, based solely upon surveys conducted prior to the election.  So how could the end result have changed?  It's because the people didn't vote him in and the Russians interfered.



Because shitty polls by mainstream media showed Hillary having more voters, Russians hacked the election?
Jesus christ dude..


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 2, 2017)

Imo, I think Obama is just trying to tense Russia before trump comes in office, or that this was intentional to make people believe Hillary won.

And if tensions rise and then we go to war, every one forgets Obama existed and immediately say "nice one trump, wasting taxpayers dollars on war"


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Keith_Loving said:


> I absolutely believe the Russians did interfere with the results of the US elections.  All of the polls prior to election day had Hilary Clinton in the lead by 6 or 7 percentage points.  All of the legitimate polls that I know of had Clinton in the lead, based solely upon surveys conducted prior to the election.  So how could the end result have changed?  It's because the people didn't vote him in and the Russians interfered.



And if you look at the included methodology in those polls they were admittedly sampling democrats 5-1 in red states like Arizona and using prior polling giving Hillary all of Bernies voters on the false assumption they would vote for Hillary. No one is accusing Russia of hacking voting machines, they are accusing them of leaking Hillary's emails and so fucking what if they did.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 2, 2017)

And think about it:
If Russia did truly sway the election to get trump in office, that would mean Russia has a tie with trump, which would cool off tensions between the leaders.

So what I'm saying is, even if it was hacked, it would actually benefit us


----------



## Flame (Jan 2, 2017)

at least USA voting can be hacked. on the Russian voting system its one choice or the death.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 2, 2017)

Flame said:


> at least USA voting can be hacked. on the Russian voting system its one choice or the death.


Lml wanna stop false voting?
Stop using voting machines. Paper votes don't lie


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jan 2, 2017)

35 retards think Russia has hacked the election LOL

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Flame said:


> at least USA voting can be hacked. on the Russian voting system its one choice or the death.



Russia isn't a dictatorship.
Also, it's not a democracy either, you won't get killed for not voting for Putin, you just simply won't vote to anyone... And it just works way better than the USA's rotten "democracy".


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 2, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> 35 retards think Russia has hacked the election LOL
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


LOL we don't think they did-
We know they didnt


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> 35 retards think Russia has hacked the election LOL


This "retard" here knows how to press the ignore forever button on a name calling smartass. Yey, you sure make your point across with name calling, genius! /s


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jan 2, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> This "retard" here knows how to press the ignore forever button on a name calling smartass. Yey, you sure make your point across with name calling, genius! /s



As expected from an Argentinian, you got triggered quite easily.


----------



## tivanh (Jan 2, 2017)

My personal stance on this is that 2 party politics is a scam. That the president does not infact hold much power. If Trump wanted power to change America, or any other president, prime minister of any country, then they would start their own party with basic ideals easily digestable. Ideals supporting things like equality, narrowing disparity, human, animal rights, environmental protection, etc. They would put contentders in all demographics and win the houses and senate and make changes for the people.

Less than 1% hold more than 99% of the worlds money, land and resources. Thats not by accident.

Trump in running to begin with and now this side show act, was and is a appease the masses that politics is legit, and working for you. In reality from my perspective they all bat for the same team, and it doesn't involve us serfs. That is what they regard us and is visible in that just owning a home on a small block takes a lifetime to achieve working long hours.

Free range slaves, stimulated with all the latest gadgets to entertain and distract them from getting educated. Divided on race, religion and class to look at each other, if they bother to pay some attention to the greater world around in them looking for reasons to world problems.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 2, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> Lml wanna stop false voting?
> Stop using voting machines. Paper votes don't lie



Though voting machines are a massive problem (video I linked earlier) there are still plenty of problems outside that


Also if a recount has ever shown a different result then there is a problem, and thus the option that paper votes don't represent the truth.


----------



## Kolyasisan (Jan 2, 2017)

And they also hacked the local elections and it said that one group scored 148% of voices in total. My country's the best. Now I only ask for reasonable people who won't judge people by it's country decisions. But seeing 90% of our people blaming all the foreigners for all the misfortune really gives us no justice. Now go on and ban me for whining.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

They didn't hack the election, so the answer is no.

They did phish and selectively release information damaging to only one party which may or may not have influenced votes. Considering most people are dumb as retarded toads missing a leg and swimming in circles, the selective release could have swayed their opinions.

Considering the election itself was simply a "choose the least shitty of the two shitty", anyone selectively releasing stolen information solely against one of the two people counts as influencing.

Also considering how suddenly Americans are being told by the next Retard In Office to suck Putin's penis for the first time in decades for no reason other than "I say so" is very scary and telling.

So please, chime in on this forum with ignorance and conspiracy shit. Bottom line is: shit was stolen and selectively released solely against one candidate.  It didn't necessarily make Clinton lose, but again, the election came down to 100K votes spread over 4 states. That's a close-as-fuck election in any case and with how stupid and reactive people are in general, there is a pretty good chance some of those 100K were people going "I read these stolen mails and they said this happened so I can't vote for her".  That = influenced.

So shame on you Costello for the "hack the election" headline.

As a citizen who voted, I am scared shitless on what we DON'T know with the Russia<->Orange Twat connection. We have no idea what he owes money to or worse -- what Russia has on him to keep him 'obedient'. And it's not just Russia. We have NO CLUE who or what this incoming turd owes $ or favors to. We know what the Glorious Leader decides to tweet out and that's it.

He doesn't answer questions; he spouts 1-way statements and lets the commoners and his shit-scoopers (Reince/Conway/etc.) clean it up for him. Unless they clean it up too much and he makes them offer a video apology (Newt and the Drain the Swamp apology he had to do).

So with this turd coming in, it IS more believable to think Russia wanted him in and did what they could to influence things simply due to his own actions.

Hillary blew too, but at least you knew why she was shitty rather clearly.  She was transparently mucky.  This cockswagger egomaniac lied then lied about his lies and then lied about the lies to his lies and never offered an apology.

The ONLY apology from him was when Pussy Grabbing came out. That's how BAD it has to be for him to admit any fault. At least Hillary apologized for the lies (then lied more).


So let's go back to discussing shitty DLC and sequels to crap, please


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

I have no doubt Russia was the perpetrator of the hacks and that they also hacked the RNC but didn't release those docs.  17 intelligence agencies confirm, even the FBI, the most conservative (redneck) of the bunch.  I think Comey's announcement so close to the election had a bigger impact on the results than the hack did, but who knows what motivated Comey to do what he did.  There very well could have been Russian involvement there, as well.

It doesn't particularly matter now that Trump has been elected.  He's easily manipulated by any number of tactics.  Just look at how Carrier already played him for a fool, sending half their jobs to Mexico, getting a huge payout from the government, and then in all likelihood they'll use that money to automate and eliminate the rest of their jobs.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

Don't worry so much man, the Republicans will do the decisions and govern, as a party, not just the inexperienced non diplomatic head of state.
Nothing extreme will happen, for sure America will come first and they would even Kennedy him up if they feel he is becoming a difficult to control puppet that puts the country into the road of self destruction. I say.

PS: And I don't particularly like Republicans, but sure they are not a monkey with a gun.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Don't worry so much man, the Republicans will do the decisions and govern, as a party, not just the inexperienced non diplomatic head of state.
> Nothing extreme will happen, for sure America will come first and they would even Kennedy him up if they feel he is becoming a difficult to control puppet that puts the country into the road of self destruction. I say.
> 
> PS: And I don't particularly like Republicans, but sure they are not a monkey with a gun.


The republicans have become incredibly stupid over the years.  Toward the end of Obama's presidency there have been a number of things they passed/attempted to pass and then literally turned right around and said to Obama, "oh, we didn't know this wouldn't work out well, why didn't you tell us it wouldn't work out well?"  Without a responsible dad in the white house to counteract all the stupidity, a lot of stuff is probably going to go sideways pretty quick.  It'll be just like the GWB years with everyone trying to line their pockets before the inevitable economic collapse brought on by the repeal of all our financial regulatory legislation.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 2, 2017)

I like how some people complaining about the op asking polit8cs on gbatemp, but can we take a moment to realize were in the bottom of the temp; in the general off topic forum


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

There are idiots on both sides of the political spectrum, enough said, no party is better than the other, politics be damned.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Smiths said:


> They didn't hack the election, so the answer is no.
> 
> They did phish and selectively release information damaging to only one party which may or may not have influenced votes.



proof? Evidence? any kind of source of fact?  No, just hyperbolic assertions.



Xzi said:


> I have no doubt Russia was the perpetrator of the hacks and that they also hacked the RNC but didn't release those docs.  17 intelligence agencies confirm, even the FBI, the most conservative (redneck) of the bunch.



Easily manipulation would be you, parroting "17 agencies confirm" which you will not find a source for other than partisan assurances it happened.  There is not a single document from any U.S agency other than partisans claiming there is off the record.

Not one shred of evidence of any kind it happened other than hysterical liberals insisting it's true.


*You and anyone else claiming Russia released Hillarys criminal emails ---- > *







No evidence, at all.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 2, 2017)

One thing I really love, and have always loved, about GBATemp is that we mostly stay out of politics. But when the gate is opened briefly for a worthwhile political discussion, it's a mostly civilized and intelligent discourse (at least, compared to some other boards where politics is an open festering wound, like that Neo-something place).

Anyway, on-topic, I'm not reading seven pages. 
The "election" wasn't hacked. The Democrat Party might have been, but Wikileaks' version of the story is that they were provided the DNC emails from an insider in a hand-delivery secret meeting, and I think their story is credible.

If those leaked emails influenced any voters' opinions, I'd say it was to no more of a degree than the news media participated in an intentional and proven effort to exert influence on the election (which, ironically, was proven by those very emails showing cooperation between the DNC and news networks).


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Easily manipulation would be you, parroting "17 agencies confirm" which you will not find a source for other than partisan assurances it happened.


The hacks and the confirmation of all intelligence agencies occurred before the election, so spare me the stupid suggestion that this news was brought about just because of the results.  Comey basically got Trump elected single-handedly and even he signed on to the findings.  Again, BEFORE the election occurred.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Jan 2, 2017)

This is an important discussion, but some people here insist on using labels such as "liberals" and "alt-right", left and right wing, and so on and then dismissing everyone they see as falling under those labels as stupid, butthurt, impressionable, and the like. Just as a reminder, having a different political ideology doesn't make anyone more of these things. It makes us different, and that's good. Without that, there would be no diversity, and that would be bad for many reasons. So please, argue respectfully. 

Now, back to the point at hand, the CIA actually just released a picture of the hackers involved. 



Spoiler: The hackers involved


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 2, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> LOL we don't think they did-
> We know they didnt


I am still waiting to see one shred of evidence. I am sure you were also positive that Saddam has WMD's. Let me guess, you also have proof that god exists.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> I actually decided to start this thread after reading this article. If you read my post carefully you'll find that I inserted a link to the report they mentionned. As I said in my original post, there is literally nothing in that report.
> So if anyone is aware of any other form of evidence may they speak up


ok, you got me, russia paid me 5 magic beans to h4x0r teh elekshuns.........


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

gamesquest1 said:


> ok, you got me, russia paid me 5 magic beans to h4x0r teh elekshuns.........


5?!! Hell you're expensive!
But well, I suppose it's the price of a job well done.


----------



## SickPuppy (Jan 2, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I am still waiting to see one shred of evidence. I am sure you were also positive that Saddam has WMD's. Let me guess, you also have proof that god exists.


 banned, really?


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Jan 2, 2017)

gamesquest1 said:


> ok, you got me, russia paid me 5 magic beans to h4x0r teh elekshuns.........


They should've payed you in arm9 exploits. . .


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 2, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> 5?!! Hell you're expensive!
> But well, I suppose it's the price of a job well done.


well they offered 4 originally, but i drove a hard bargain, i mean come one it took a lot of effort finding all the hidden backdoors built into the election system


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jan 2, 2017)

.....lying as ordered by the Democrat government? HA! Except we are completely under Middle-Class-fucking Republican control!


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This is an important discussion, but some people here insist on using labels such as "liberals" and "alt-right", left and right wing, and so on and then dismissing everyone they see as falling under those labels as stupid, butthurt, impressionable, and the like. Just as a reminder, having a different political ideology doesn't make anyone more of these things. It makes us different, and that's good. Without that, there would be no diversity, and that would be bad for many reasons. So please, argue respectfully.


Things in the US are only going to get more divisive from here, because Trump is certainly no great uniting leader.  Violence against Muslims has already been rising sharply since he started running, and for the most part he acts like the election is still going, stoking the flames even further.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The hacks and the confirmation of all intelligence agencies occurred before the election, so spare me the stupid suggestion that this news was brought about just because of the results.  Comey basically got Trump elected single-handedly and even he signed on to the findings.  Again, BEFORE the election occurred.



I am not suggesting, I am stating a simple fact there is no evidence Russia hacked Hillary's precious emails and showed everyone the nasty criminal behavior taking place in the DNC.

I don't have to suggest anything, if there was any proof you would post it. You can't, you wont because there is *none*.

The salt gives me strength. Keep typing away, your font is not evidence.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jan 2, 2017)

JoostinOnline said:


> Some places have you vote through a machine.  A lot of others use a machine to count the votes after you submit your ballot.  It's not very common to have people actually count the votes anymore.


Okay, late response.  Anyway, that would mean the Russians would've had to hack voting machines across the country, which just seems unlikely.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> I am not suggesting, I am stating a simple fact there is no evidence Russia hacked Hillary's precious emails


Yeah I think I'll take the word of 17 bi-partisan intelligence agencies over that of some rando idiot on the internet trying to get a rise out of people.  Crazy, I know.


----------



## shaunj66 (Jan 2, 2017)

If they can hack the US election they shouldn't have any trouble hacking the Switch.






  Россия, вперед!


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 2, 2017)

More proof the two party system needs to die. This whole election was nothing but a reality show on a larger scale. As long as idiots are making decisions based on candidates' personal lives, both parties can continue to keep turning this place into a totalitarian nanny-state.


----------



## SG6000 (Jan 2, 2017)

Every reasonably developed nation hacks or tries to hack other countries, but no country on earth has the vast resources and infrastructure for malicious, commercially and politically motivated hacks and attacks that the USA does. The Snowden leaks exposed a tip of the iceburg of the surveillance complex that was in play years ago - and the role it plays in shaping our societies and, for example, drone bombing suspects and their families in countries far away and too full of brown people to care about.

The question is not whether you believe Russia was involved in hacking sensitive US servers in the run up to the election, but whether you believe the USA is justified with its demented hypocrisy when it comes to smearing other countries of crimes that are standard operating procedure for itself?


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Yeah I think I'll take the word of 17 bi-partisan intelligence agencies over that of some rando idiot on the internet trying to get a rise out of people.  Crazy, I know.



Except you wont post a single source that they gave that word, *because it doesn't exist.*

You will keep typing, keep insulting.  What you wont do is post a source because it's bullshit.

Repeating it over and over will continue to make it bullshit.

You know why? because it is *BULLSHIT.
*


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 2, 2017)

SG6000 said:


> Every reasonably developed nation hacks or tries to hack other countries, but no country on earth has the vast resources and infrastructure for malicious, commercially and politically motivated hacks and attacks that the USA does. The Snowden leaks exposed a tip of the iceburg of the surveillance complex that was in play years ago - and the role it plays in shaping our societies and, for example, drone bombing suspects and their families in countries far away and too full of brown people to care about.
> 
> The question is not whether you believe Russia was involved in hacking sensitive US servers in the run up to the election, but whether you believe the USA is justified with its demented hypocrisy when it comes to smearing other countries of crimes that are standard operating procedure for itself?


The people who run this country are a scary bunch. They take advantage of "states of emergency" in order to create these random 3-letter agencies so that they can skirt around checks and balances. The NSA doesn't have to answer to anybody because they're stoppin' dem turrists, but in reality all they do is shut down torrent sites.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

SG6000 said:


> The question is not whether you believe Russia was involved in hacking sensitive US servers in the run up to the election, but whether you believe the USA is justified with its demented hypocrisy when it comes to smearing other countries of crimes that are standard operating procedure for itself?


We shouldn't conflate interference in an election with mass surveillance.  These days most countries do mass surveillance on their own citizens, and very often in cases where they don't, they contract other countries to do mass surveillance on their citizens for them.  Unfortunately we don't really have to hack anyone to get the information we want, it's probably already available to us.



jimbo13 said:


> Except you wont post a single source that they gave that word, *because it doesn't exist.*


Are you fuckin serious?  Google you idiot, use it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 2, 2017)

SickPuppy said:


> banned, really?


No.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

The one bright side here is that now we get to watch Trump's administration fail spectacularly and watch his supporters scramble for excuses.  He's already broken nearly all of his campaign promises.  Not gonna prosecute Hillary, not gonna build a wall that's "necessarily physical," not gonna drain the swamp because he already filled his cabinet with swamp-dwellers.  Trump may have set a record as the president-elect quickest to throw his base under the bus.


----------



## Supster131 (Jan 2, 2017)

Not gonna bother with reading 9 pages of stuff, so.
Anyways, I believe that Russia did not "hack" the U.S election.

And even if they did, wouldn't the democrats be hypocrites? They rigged the primaries against Bernie, so they have no right to talk.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> We shouldn't conflate interference in an election with mass surveillance.  These days most countries do mass surveillance on their own citizens, and very often in cases where they don't, they contract other countries to do mass surveillance on their citizens for them.  Unfortunately we don't really have to hack anyone to get the information we want, it's probably already available to us.
> 
> 
> Are you fuckin serious?  Google you idiot, use it.
> ...




You keep using that word _idiot_, because you have No evidence.

Every expert that has examined the report of the NICS has said it has no Evidence, and it states on the first page the report is an opinion of suspect and contains *NO CONCLUSIONS.*

http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegro...nvinced_by_fbi_and_homeland_security_20161230


U.S today giving their opinion on a report is not evidence.

You know why?

Because there is no fucking evidence idiot.

If there was evidence you would state what it is instead of insulting people fucking safe space dwelling leftist muslim worshipping liberal fucking low life idiot.

And you know why you will stick to insults? BECAUSE THERE IS NONE, NOT A SINGLE IOTA OF *EVIDENCE*.

You're hyperbolic hysterical assertions, and a opinion of suspects with a BOLD STATEMENT ON THE COVER LETTER THAT THIS REPORT CONTAINS *NO CONCLUSIONS is NOT EVIDENCE*.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

attn ignored jimbo13: It's pretty easy... if you just dismiss me as "whining liberal" you are ignored. You don't know me; you assume I'm a whiny crying liberal because I dare doubt your view.  Therefore you are not worth your opinion. Post memes, call names, go ahead.

I said flat out both candidates were awful. I spoke simply about the lack of knowledge of the winner, who publicly calls people who didn't vote for him (which is a greater amount of people than those who did) "Enemies" on December 31.  I'm sorry, but calling half of Americans "enemies" is not something I feel anyone should be proud of, but then I see a post like yours which seems to gladly embrace that. Hence why you no longer exist on this forum to me. Thanks.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> You keep using that word _idiot_, because you have No evidence.


You might be an idiot if...you believe a tweet from Donald Trump over the word of 17 intelligence agencies.

After he starts a war I imagine you'll be here telling people, "there's no evidence that he's started a war!"


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 2, 2017)

Not going to read through all of this but I have not seen any solid proof that shows this.


----------



## SickPuppy (Jan 2, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> No.


You got me. I thought you were banned. 

Them liberals are as corrupt as hell,  why does it take russia hacking to make the people understand? Where I live there were numerous polls around the city that pointed to liberal fraud, hopefully those people are found guilty of tampering with the polling machines and do jail time.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> You might be an idiot if...you believe a tweet from Donald Trump over the word of 17 intelligence agencies.
> 
> After he starts a war I imagine you'll be here telling people, "there's no evidence that he's started a war!"



I believe there word entirely, there word is they suspect Russia and have no evidence or conclusions.

And since they have No evidence, neither do you.

But keep changing the subject with your hyperbolic bullshit to hide the fact you can't/wont cite a single piece of evidence.

Let give you examples of what evidence would like,


> _Page 3 section 4 of the NICS report cites IP logs coming from Eastern Europe known to be used by Russian intelligence._



You wont cite anything similar, or anything concrete because it doesn't exist.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

SickPuppy said:


> You got me. I thought you were banned.
> 
> Them liberals are as corrupt as hell,  why does it take russia hacking to make the people understand? Where I live there were numerous polls around the city that pointed to liberal fraud, hopefully those people are found guilty of tampering with the polling machines and do jail time.


The entire system is clearly very corrupt when the powers that be would rather put an easily-manipulated Donald Trump into office instead of a real change-maker like Bernie Sanders.



jimbo13 said:


> I believe there word entirely, there word is they suspect Russia and have no evidence or conclusions.


Obviously I can't get my hands on the code used to trace the hackers, but even if I could and I posted it here, you wouldn't understand it or take it as evidence in the affirmative anyway.  In other words, there's no way to satisfy your standard of evidence, and the de facto result is that you are believing a tweet over everything else.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jan 2, 2017)

Of course not. I'd say more but im never good at expressing my political beliefs without having people hate me.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

People, be civilised. Enough with the name calling. We can act like grown ups if we try. 

TBH, I don't believe liberals in general are corrupt, but I sure think Hillary Clinton is the worst the Democrats could run for a president candidate. Hell, why her?


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 2, 2017)

Ok, I commented already once on pg 7, but one more thing ... 

Trump's winning the election seems to have kicked the dollar up a notch against other major world currencies. That's awesome - dollar to yen rate is starting to head back where it was a couple years ago. I am hoping for another big jump once he's inaugurated. Why? XRGB mini Framemeister costs too much.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

For anyone interested in actual facts and not just parroting bullshit like Xzi, *here* is the actual report which you can read for yourself. 

In that report you will find the facts they did not find it was worth releasing to the public because they have no evidence (and _*they*_ didn't, it's a second hand leak), they have no conclusions and only suspicions based on previous behavior and not a single tangible fact.







Spoiler: 10 Facts about the NICS report disproving alleged Russian hacking



*1. There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion.* The _New York Times_ reports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.

*2. The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive.* The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” _The Hill_ reported on Sunday.

*3. The CIA is not making public claims that Russia hacked the election.* Several CIA veterans, in fact, have urged caution about the leaked reports. As _Newsweek_ reports: “‘I am not saying that I don’t think Russia did this,’ Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells _Newsweek_, in a typical comment. ‘My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.'” Thus far there is not even a clear idea what the CIA’s conclusions are.

*4. Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.* The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.

*5. The Obama administration has a history of manipulating intelligence for political gain.* The most under-reported scandal of Obama’s presidency was the CENTCOM scandal, in which it emerged that “senior U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) leaders manipulated intelligence assessments in 2014 and 2015 to make it appear that President Barack Obama is winning the war against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL).” There is even more reason to doubt the truth of a selective leak about the election.

*6. Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures.* Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.

*7. The fact that the Russians might constantly be trying to hack U.S. systems, and might even specifically have targeted the election, does not prove that they succeeded. *Nor does it prove that they tipped the election to Trump even if they had some effect. As pollster Frank Luntz tweeted: “Did Russia also hack Hillary’s campaign calendar and delete all her stops in rural Wisconsin, Penn., and Michigan?” Hillary Clinton lost the election for reasons entirely of her own making.

*8. Foreign interference in elections is nothing new — and the Obama administration is a prime culprit.* In 2015, the Obama administration made a strenuous and not-terribly-well-hidden effort to swing the Israeli elections toward the opposition and away from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The State Department gave $300,000 to a “pro-peace” Israeli group, which then paid political activists whose goal was to unseat Netanyahu. In 1984, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) actually asked for Soviet help. Russian efforts to intervene would be bad, but not unique, either for Russia or for the U.S.

*9. What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly?* Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.

*10. Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation for the “Russian hacking” story is that it is “fake news” that suits the left-wing media.* It is not unknown for Russia to use false propaganda to affect public opinion in foreign countries. Nor is it unknown for the U.S. media to use bias, “fake news,” and outright lies to shift public opinion in this country. The current focus on Russian “hacking,” based on no new evidence and — again — _zero _evidence of tampering with the voting process.



*Grizzly Misstep: Security Experts Call Russia Hacking Report “Poorly Done,” “Fatally Flawed”*

*Reports: FBI, CIA Not On The Same Page About Russian Hacking (Maybe Because The Evidence About Russia Helping Trump Is Not Substantiated)*


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

So you post the actual report linking Russia to the hacks, then you post a bunch of conjecture and partisan bullshit in the expectation that it somehow disproves that Russia was behind the hacks.  Great job, you've provided a lot more evidence to back my side of the argument.  Your own...not so much.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> So you post the actual report linking Russia to the hacks, then you post a bunch of conjecture and partisan bullshit in the expectation that it somehow disproves that Russia was behind the hacks.  Great job, you've provided a lot more evidence to back my side of the argument.  Your own...not so much.



How bout you read the report, and cite a page with evidence. You wont because there is none in there which they admit to in that report.


----------



## RandomGuest1 (Jan 2, 2017)

I say, no , I am sure, don't look at my name.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

The irony here being that you're trying to use the FBI to disprove the evidence this document provides, but the FBI was co-author of this document and their contact info is at the bottom of it.

Page one since apparently you can't read: "This determination expands upon the Joint Statement released October 7, 2016."  In addition there is still a more detailed investigation in progress and a more detailed report forthcoming before Trump enters office.  In other words this isn't just a one document thing, it's been ongoing for a while now with a number of reports piling up.  I'm sure those tweets still look far more legit to you than anything else, though.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 2, 2017)

SickPuppy said:


> You got me. I thought you were banned.
> 
> Them liberals are as corrupt as hell,  why does it take russia hacking to make the people understand? Where I live there were numerous polls around the city that pointed to liberal fraud, hopefully those people are found guilty of tampering with the polling machines and do jail time.


Yeah. There was a lot around here as well with Democrats doing shady things, some getting caught throwing away mail in ballots, changing or throwing away voter registrations, and even some ballot workers filling in MANY ballots and putting them into the counter machines. If anything, the dems messed with the election. And let us not forget all the undocumented immigrants that voted when they should not have. 
I think that if Russia had any hacking going on then it was only to do with the emails and not directly to the election. 

What i find hilarious is how so many dems kept saying that the election cant be hacked and trump was "just losing", now so many dems call foul and are claiming that there was hacking involved. Funny how their views of what can and cant be done changes when they lose. 

Of course no one believes it enough to put a halt to trumps inauguration.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The irony here being that you're trying to use the FBI to disprove the evidence this document provides, but the FBI was co-author of this document and their contact info is at the bottom of it.
> 
> Page one since apparently you can't read: "This determination expands upon the Joint Statement released October 7, 2016."  In addition there is still a more detailed investigation in progress and a more detailed report forthcoming before Trump enters office.  In other words this isn't just a one document thing, it's been ongoing for a while now with a number of reports piling up.



Unless you are going to quote something for the report that is evidence, I am not reading your continued bullshit assertions.

Because that's all you have is bullshit and assertions.


Bold a page number and a section when you post and I will be happy to read it, but you wont because you don't have anything substantive other than your partisan hyperbolic bullshit assertions.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Unless you are going to quote something for the report that is evidence, I am not reading your continued bullshit assertions.


Good, I have no desire to continue arguing with somebody who has obviously entrenched partisan political views entirely clouding his judgment and common sense.

"Gee, I wonder what Russia has to gain by being the only G20 nation to support a braindead puppet like Donald Trump for president.  Probably nothing."


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Obviously I can't get my hands on the code used to trace the hackers, but even if I could and I posted it here, you wouldn't understand it or take it as evidence in the affirmative anyway.  In other words, there's no way to satisfy your standard of evidence, and the de facto result is that you are believing a tweet over everything else.


I got my hands on the code used to determine where the hacks originated. 

```
10 hacker$ = "Russia" 
20 print "Those whom hacked the election are from"; hacker$
30 goto CryLikeABitch
```


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jan 2, 2017)

Yes, totally. I also believe the Loch Ness monster exists.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Good, I have no desire to continue arguing with somebody who has obviously entrenched partisan political views entirely clouding his judgment and common sense.
> 
> "Gee, I wonder what Russia has to gain by being the only G20 nation to support a braindead puppet like Donald Trump for president.  Probably nothing."



No you have no desire to continue arguing because I posted the report and there isn't a single shred of evidence for you to argue with, cite and you're in a complete state of cognitive dissonance to the fact you are a fucking idiot,

If there was evidence you would cite it from the report instead of making ad-hominem arguments. But it is obvious to every one why you don't.

Everytime you post, I will call upon you again to cite the evidence from the report illustrating the fact you are an idiot with no evidence.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/29/fbi-dhs-russian-hacking-report


PAGE NUMBER with evidence Can you cite one mother fucker?








If not why are you fucking posting?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I got my hands on the code used to determine where the hacks originated.


If I'm crying it's only to mourn the loss of my country before our useless piece of shit president-elect turns it into a third-world economic depression zone.



jimbo13 said:


> Snip


So much for not reading what I say any more, eh?


----------



## gudenau (Jan 2, 2017)

I want to believe it because it would make the states look like a little less of a fool for voting for Rump.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

gudenaurock said:


> I want to believe it because it would make the states look like a little less of a fool for voting for Rump.


Keeping in mind it was only 3 or 4 counties and about 7200 votes that ultimately decided the election.  With the broken electoral college system it only takes a little bit of manipulation to change the outcome.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jan 2, 2017)

I've been skeptic of government agencies ever since the Snowden incident.


----------



## OrGoN3 (Jan 2, 2017)

I don't know and frankly, I don't care. As others have stated, it is impossible to hack an entire election. You'd only be able to hack local outcomes. After the whole recount, it turns out Trump had more votes than originally. The whole recount was because people thought some areas were hacked to make Trump win. If that were the case, the recounts would favor Hillary, which they did not. It's a bunch of BS.


----------



## gudenau (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Keeping in mind it was only 3 or 4 counties and about 7200 votes that ultimately decided the election.  With the broken electoral college system it only takes a little bit of manipulation to change the outcome.


Yeah, but they have hefty fines for not voting for who they are told to by the local vote.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

gudenaurock said:


> Yeah, but they have hefty fines for not voting for who they are told to by the local vote.


Well I meant you only have to manipulate a little bit of the popular vote to get the result you want from the electoral college.  And Americans have become easier to manipulate than ever before.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Keeping in mind it was only 3 or 4 counties and about 7200 votes that ultimately decided the election.  With the broken electoral college system it only takes a little bit of manipulation to change the outcome.



Also keep in mind that if popular vote won, the states with the largest population have the biggest influence.

It's easy to claim a system is rigged or broken when it doesn't go in your favor. You can throw your fits.. but it happens every 4 years. Your choice either wins or loses. If you win, you tell people to get over it. If you lose, you call foul. Can't please everyone.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Jan 2, 2017)

Costello said:


> What do you think is really going on? Let's get a little political here.
> 
> I assume you've all heard of the recent Vermont power grid "hacking" story. A few days ago a Vermont utility company found a russian virus on some guy's computer and (part of) the press extrapolated the fact, turning it into a so-called proof of a Russian conspiracy to hack the US power grid...  That title was a fucking clickbait, and I just knew it. But not just your average buzzshit clickbait, a serious fucking one this time. When you read the article it became clear: pure bullshit. No evidence whatsoever, all that happened is that they found a regular virus on a random guy's computer, which happens a million times a day everywhere in the world. A few hours later they retracted, a lot of other sites and agencies stated that there was no such thing as a power grid hack attempt. Those media outlets jumped to conclusions to serve their own agenda, it seems.
> 
> ...


I just realized that I hadn't actually heard about that Vermont power grid story. That's pretty funny.  I found one of the articles with a scary title and it had this little gem:

"While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the nation’s electrical grid. "

I just feel bad for the people that got scared. I guess this doesn't contribute much to the election debate, but hopefully the entire Vermont thing stops getting people in a fright.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Also keep in mind that if popular vote won, the states with the largest population have the biggest influence.


Sure, but that would still make more sense.  It would be a majority of Americans deciding the election rather than a select few contested counties.  Where they live in America shouldn't make any difference.  Especially since we're supposedly the "United" States.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Keeping in mind it was only 3 or 4 counties and about 7200 votes that ultimately decided the election.  With the broken electoral college system it only takes a little bit of manipulation to change the outcome.



California & NY not being able to lord over everyone else is not broken, working exactly as intended.


----------



## Haider Raza (Jan 2, 2017)

They all are in the same group so called illuminaies. They don't need virus. If they chose who becames president no one can give a damn about it. All new world & some early old leaders were or are under there ass. No politicians can give a f_ck about there citizens as there satanic rules & because of there greed for money power pussy*cat. As what they can expect from the illuminaties.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> California & NY not being able to lord over everyone else is not broken, working exactly as intended.


Not even nearly working as intended.  When you get close to voting age people tell you, "don't forget to vote, every vote counts!"  The truth is that some votes count a lot more than others, and a whole lot of votes don't count at all in the electoral college system.  Once a person gets 50.1% in a state, the rest of the votes in that state don't mean anything.

The electoral college has become nothing but a thinly-veiled monarchy that decides our rulers for us.  It's completely contrary to the idea of a democracy.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 2, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I am still waiting to see one shred of evidence. I am sure you were also positive that Saddam has WMD's. Let me guess, you also have proof that god exists.


I don't understand why you quoted me if I'm agreeing. I said they didn't because I havent seen any evidence


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Not even nearly working as intended.  When you get close to voting age people tell you, "don't forget to vote, every vote counts!"  The truth is that some votes count a lot more than others, and a whole lot of votes don't count at all in the electoral college system.  Once a person gets 50.1% in a state, the rest of the votes in that state don't mean anything. The electoral college has become nothing but a thinly-veiled monarchy that decides our rulers for us.  It's completely contrary to the idea of a democracy.



That's it is contrary to the idea of Democracy, which is what was intended.  We don't have a Democracy, We live in a republic.

In a Democracy the majority can vote away the rights of the individual.

Two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner.  Or in this case, California & NY disenfranchising everyone else in the country.

It was specifically designed so one or two large populace states couldn't lord over the country.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 2, 2017)

This Russian hacking thing is some Kojima-level conspiracy shit. What did they do? Break into the GW system?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> That's it is contrary to the idea of Democracy, which is what was intended.  We don't have a Democracy, We live in a republic.


It's supposed to be a democratic republic, but we're definitely on the verge of losing that first part.



jimbo13 said:


> It was specifically designed so one or two large populace states couldn't lord over the country.


Which is stupid.  You don't become a democrat just because you move to California, and you don't become a republican just because you move to Texas.  Your vote should count all the same regardless of where in the US you live, and right now it does not.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> This Russian hacking thing is some Kojima-level conspiracy shit. What did they do? Break into the GW system?



I think they're just asshurt because the vote didn't go their way. Now they know how we felt the past two elections.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 2, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I think they're just asshurt because the vote didn't go their way. Now they know how we felt the past two elections.


Idk it could have happened, I was just saying it sounded like a Metal Gear subplot. I support the Libtertarian party and neither the Republicans or Democrats. Those two are really on the same side when it comes to the real issues.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I think they're just asshurt because the vote didn't go their way. Now they know how we felt the past two elections.


Again I'd say that would be a reasonable assumption, if the information about the hacks and the intelligence statements didn't occur before the election.  They did, however.  Russia was not shy about being the only G20 nation to support Trump for president, so the list of suspects narrowed down pretty quickly.

Then of course you've got Trump's business ties to Russia, which run deep.  Russians have been in and around his businesses for decades now.  Hell, Trump's pick for Secretary of State is an Exxon Mobile CEO that's literally friends with Putin.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> Idk it could have happened, I was just saying it sounded like a Metal Gear subplot. I support the Libtertarian party and neither the Republicans or Democrats. Those two are really on the same side when it comes to the real issues.



Whether it happened or not doesn't matter, the Dems are only doing it because they're throwing a tantrum that the election didn't go their way. Too effing bad for them 



Xzi said:


> Again I'd say that would be a reasonable assumption, if the information about the hacks and the intelligence statements didn't occur before the election.  They did, however.  Russia was not shy about being the only G20 nation to support Trump for president, so the list of suspects narrowed down pretty quickly.
> 
> Then of course you've got Trump's business ties to Russia, which run deep.  Russians have been in and around his businesses for decades now.  Hell, Trump's pick for Secretary of State is an Exxon Mobile CEO that's literally friends with Putin.



C'est la vie. People are only pissy because Clinton didn't win and the Dems have lost their cool. Oh the things we could say about Clinton, she's not exactly a saint either, but it'd be a waste of time.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> It's supposed to be a democratic republic, but we're definitely on the verge of losing that first part.
> 
> Which is stupid.  You don't become a democrat just because you move to California, and you don't become a republican just because you move to Texas.  Your vote should count all the same regardless of where in the US you live, and right now it does not.



Actually living in a rural area vs a population center seems to directly affected by how much government intrusion you want in your life. It is working as intended, you obviously dislike the intention however.

I'm sure California can call for a constitutional convention and everyone will go along with L.A county implementing a popular vote and people who jam themselves in to over populated cities can run everyone's live who doesn't live in the city.


----------



## kumikochan (Jan 2, 2017)

Kinda funny that the US is complaining about hacking an election by the Russians but they seem to forget they hacked the entire world even allies and even Merkel her Phone by the NSA not so long ago. But seems when they do shit it's okay but when somebody else does it's WW3


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> Kinda funny that the US is complaining about hacking an election by the Russians but they seem to forget they hacked the entire world even allies and even Merkel her Phone by the NSA not so long ago. But seems when they do shit it's okay but when somebody else does it's WW3



Again, I think it's due to the fact things didn't go their way and they started their undies in a bunch.


----------



## DarthDub (Jan 2, 2017)

I remember when Romney told Obama that he sees Russia as a threat and he made fun of him for saying that. Cut in 4 years later and we have this crap.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Actually living in a rural area vs a population center seems to directly affected by how much government intrusion you want in your life.


Correlation does not equal causation, people live in various areas for various personal reasons.  It's also pretty ironic that people supposedly wanting less government in their lives voted for a man spouting a whole lot of authoritarian rhetoric.



jimbo13 said:


> It is working as intended, you obviously dislike the intention however.


The initial purpose of the electoral college was as a safeguard to keep a populist nutjob unfit for the office from becoming president.  So it's obviously failed us.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 2, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> I don't understand why you quoted me if I'm agreeing. I said they didn't because I havent seen any evidence


Sorry. I might have misread your post or quotes your by accident.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I find it incredibly entertaining to read Democrats posting about the so-called "rigged" election or the election hacks. It's funny, because they spent the better half of last year telling Trump that the election can't be rigged and that the election system is impervious to manipulation, which we all know is patently untrue, but that's besides the point.


It was even said that when various recounts were done for this election, it was found out that many Democratic votes were invalid, such as long since deceased persons being counted, people voting for others ended up beinging votes for Democrat, etc.

Not saying in the slightest that Trump is good, but when even the evidence proves that something was up regarding the Democratic vote after the Democrats said it can't be rigged....I dunno.....


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Again I'd say that would be a reasonable assumption, if the information about the hacks and the intelligence statements didn't occur before the election.  They did, however.  Russia was not shy about being the only G20 nation to support Trump for president, so the list of suspects narrowed down pretty quickly.
> 
> Then of course you've got Trump's business ties to Russia, which run deep.  Russians have been in and around his businesses for decades now.  Hell, Trump's pick for Secretary of State is an Exxon Mobile CEO that's literally friends with Putin.



Considering Hilary's hostility toward Russia and Putin? It makes sense they'd vie for Trump, rather than anyone else.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 2, 2017)

The democrats praised the electoral college since its conception in 1787 until they lost this time around, and now its the worse thing besides Trump.
Open your eyes!  The electoral college was designed to give middle america a voice and be heard.
Also it's only obvious career poloticians from both sides left and right are scared because they are gonna be exposed for who they really are, and will be stopped from stealing our hard earned monies and our rights and Trump is doing just that.
So no it did not fail, you failed for not being educated on why there is even the electoral college.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Considering Hilary's hostility toward Russia and Putin? It makes sense they'd vie for Trump, rather than anyone else.


It kills me that people with "make America great again" hats would vote for Russian interests over American interests.  Republicans were vehemently anti-Russia just a few decades ago, the party of the red scare.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> It kills me that people with "make America great again" hats would vote for Russian interests over American interests.  Republicans were vehemently anti-Russia just a few decades ago, the party of the red scare.


Because the general public are nothing more than mindless obedient sheeple too afraid to stand up for whats right in fear of losing their paychecks and or going to jail.  Sad excuse.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> The democrats praised the electoral college since its conception in 1787 until they lost this time around, and now its the worse thing besides Trump.
> Open your eyes!  The electoral college was designed to give middle america a voice and be heard.
> Also it's only obvious career poloticians from both sides left and right are scared because they are gonna be exposed for who they really are, and will be stopped from stealing our hard earned monies and our rights and Trump is doing just that.
> So no it did not fail, you failed for not being educated on why there is even the electoral college.


As far as I know, the electoral college is the result of the two parties never being able to come to a consensus. One side wanted the president to be elected by the Senate, which in turn would consist of representatives chosen by the people and voting on their behalf, while the other side wanted a popular vote. In the absence of a middle ground they simply implemented both, which lead to the creation of the overcomplicated system the U.S. uses now.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 2, 2017)

Regardless why we have it or how it works does not vindicate why the dems stoop so low to undermine our constitution.
Obama is a wannabe dictator who will do whatever in his power he can to stay in office even if that include war with russia., and that is seen plain as day.
OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE!


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> It kills me that people with "make America great again" hats would vote for Russian interests over American interests.  Republicans were vehemently anti-Russia just a few decades ago, the party of the red scare.



We prefer Russian interests over Muslim & Mexican interests that the Democrats were representing.

And it was Nixon & Reagan who fostered great relations with China and the other communist countries.  Kennedy had the Cuban missile crisis.

Nixon damn near made peace with Russia, look up Detente, S.A.L.T.

Try actually citing history instead of your own political bigotry as fact.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Regardless why we have it or how it works does not vindicate why the dems stoop so low to undermine our constitution.
> Obama is a wannabe dictator who will do whatever in his power he can to stay in office even if that include war with russia., and that is seen plain as day.
> OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE!


The terminology you use doesn't lend to the power of your statement, but you're partially right - Obama's fondness for executive orders, which are only meant to be used in the event of national crisis, does make him seem slightly dictatorial. Enacting laws just because the president feels like they should be enacted is the antithesis of democracy, it's authoritarian.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 2, 2017)

the entire electoral college deal is a scam imo we vote for president but do we really? the answer is no the american democracy system is total b*llsh!t we think we're free but in reallity no like freedom of speech I could probably be put in prison for saying all of this under the notion of "act of terrorism" we're in fact I'm just an angry guy who refuses to bend to the will of my government I am threatening no high position official am I? and because I'm a Muslim convert I am seriously under their microscope i bet


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> As far as I know, the electoral college is the result of the two parties never being able to come to a consensus. One side wanted the president to be elected by the Senate, which in turn would consist of representatives chosen by the people and voting on their behalf, while the other side wanted a popular vote. In the absence of a middle ground they simply implemented both, which lead to the creation of the overcomplicated system the U.S. uses now.


that, and back in the day, news traveled slow. horseback slow. so if the guy the West voted for died between votes cast and election time, what do you do? don't want it to just go to the next guy in line, that way is shady town. so, just send some representatives to cast the votes instead. they can get the latest news and decide what's in the best interest of the country, given what the voters they represent want. also meant to prevent crazy country-destroying maniacs from holding the position.

so yeah, pretty out-dated way of thinking.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

osaka35 said:


> that, and back in the day, news traveled slow. horseback slow. so if the guy the West voted for died between votes cast and election time, what do you do? don't want it to just go to the next guy in line, that way is shady town. so, just send some representatives to cast the votes instead. they can get the latest news and decide what's in the best interest of the country, given what the voters they represent want. also meant to prevent crazy country-destroying maniacs from holding the position.
> 
> so yeah, pretty out-dated way of thinking.


That's not an argument against the electoral college. Were the president elected by the Senate, it would not only be more efficient and less time-consuming, it would also eliminate uneducated voting as a factor in the election. Senators were already given their powers in an election, there's no reason why they couldn't vote on their constituent's behalf - they do it every single day regardless. Elections would be far more simplistic and less prone to politics of appeasement and populist policy.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> The terminology you use doesn't lend to the power of your statement, but you're partially right - Obama's fondness for executive orders, which are only meant to be used in the event of national crisis, does make him seem slightly dictatorial. Enacting laws just because the president feels like they should be enacted is the antithesis of democracy, it's authoritarian.



And yet people are upset that Clinton wasn't elected and she would likely pull the same bullshit by enacting unnecessary executive orders.  I never agreed with Obama, respected his position, yes, respected the fact he was POTUS, but ideologically, I never agreed with him. Nor Clinton's ideologies.  But if I dare voice that more often, I get called out because my views aren't aligned with others'


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 2, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Regardless why we have it or how it works does not vindicate why the dems stoop so low to undermine our constitution.
> Obama is a wannabe dictator who will do whatever in his power he can to stay in office even if that include war with russia., and that is seen plain as day.
> OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE!


What about George W. Bush, who was more than happy to use a terrorist attack to give himself more executive powers? I bet he thought he was going to be the next dictator. If he was a little more intelligent he could have pulled it off. There is NO difference between a republican and a democrat. The only difference are the beliefs of the people who worship imaginary political parties.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> We prefer Russian interests over Muslim & Mexican interests that the Democrats were representing.


Do you really hate your neighbour Mexicans so much?
I really hate this concept that if it is your neighbour you are supposed to fake that you hate them (expected fake behaviour, there's no real hate). Like Argentinians and Chileans or Brazilians, Frenchs and Germans or Spaniards, and well I see it also works for Americans and Mexicans.


----------



## Captain_N (Jan 2, 2017)

we know they hacked the dnc. i dont think they hacked the results. All the noobs that say Hilery won, well its not by popular vote...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> What about George W. Bush, who was more than happy to use a terrorist attack to give himself more executive powers? I bet he thought he was going to be the next dictator. If he was a little more intelligent he could have pulled it off. There is NO difference between a republican and a democrat. The only difference are the beliefs of the people who worship imaginary political parties.


...which is part of the reason why Trump won - he's neither. He's not a career politician and he represents the Republican credo about as well as I represent human decency or politeness. He somehow managed to usurp the GOP and established his own movement within the party, he's a third-party candidate in everything but his name and his election is a triumph of clever trickery over under-the-table politics. He's hated by the Democrats and the Republicans, he's hated by the media, he's hated by big corporations, and if this many powerful entities hate you, you're doing something right. There's a reason why support for him is strong and unwavering despite all sorts of backlash - he's the definition of an anti-establishment individual.


sarkwalvein said:


> Do you really hate your neighbour Mexicans so much?
> I really hate this concept that if it is your neighbour you are supposed to fake that you hate them (expected fake behaviour, there's no real hate). Like Argentinians and Chileans or Brazilians, Frenchs and Germans or Spaniards, and well I see it also works for Americans and Mexicans.


Hey, the French have two really good reasons to hate Germans. We all do.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 2, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Do you really hate your neighbour Mexicans so much?



Only I hate the constant allegations of _*hate *_because I don't believe in unregulated open border invasion, cultural & economic displacement of U.S citizens and the idea because they are brown we are supposed to place their interests above our own.

Mexico is a third world Narco-terrorist state that I don't want spreading in to my country, it's real simple. No one hates our northern citizens because their citizens don't displace our citizens and I can't think of a single instance of them raping our murdering Americans.






*Now show me the Canadian equivalent.*


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> We prefer Russian interests over Muslim & Mexican interests that the Democrats were representing.


In other words you prefer to be distracted by bigotry and demagoguery rather than address the real issues facing America.  This is the reason we can't ever move forward on anything in this country.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Only I hate the constant allegations of _*hate *_because I don't believe in unregulated open border invasion, cultural & economic displacement of U.S citizens and the idea because they are brown we are supposed to place their interests above our own.
> 
> Mexico is a third world Narco-terrorist state that I don't want spreading in to my country, it's real simple. No one hates our northern citizens because their citizens don't displace our citizens and I can't think of a single instance of them raping our murdering Americans.
> 
> ...


No idea. Every Canadian I know is quite peaceful.
Actually, every Mexican I know is quite peaceful also, but I would go out of my way to avoid touching Mexican soil if possible. (Well, no thank you)

PS: they have some security problems there, and I say that from an Argentinian point of view, my country is no Sweden levels of safe I mean.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> In other words you prefer to be distracted by bigotry and demagoguery rather than address the real issues facing America.  This is the reason we can't ever move forward on anything in this country.


It's that kind of framing that makes political conversation fruitless - you necessarily consider your position in terms of forward movement and anything else as regress instead of weighting the pros and cons. You have to entertain the idea that both sides want the country to improve, they just have different ideas on how that could be achieved.

As far as immigration is concerned, there can be no open borders with illegal drugs and prostitution in the picture, because that's Mexico's core export into the U.S. - if both were legal, the mafia would have no power.


----------



## smf (Jan 2, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I just see it as a ploy to blame everyone else because the election didn't go their way, it was a subterfuge to throw a tantrum and point fingers, etc IMHO.



We know that there were hacks, because there were leaks from those hacks. There is compelling evidence that the hacks came from Russia. It might be that someone managed to fake the evidence, but then we're still not in the realms of tantrum and pointing fingers.



Foxi4 said:


> he's the definition of an anti-establishment individual.



Trump is not anti-establishment.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 2, 2017)

smf said:


> We know that there were hacks, because there were leaks from those hacks. There is compelling evidence that the hacks came from Russia. It might be that someone managed to fake the evidence, but then we're still not in the realms of tantrum and pointing fingers.



But the timing of the leak was too good, just after Trump got elected, but had Clinton got elected, they would've brushed it aside.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Tons of shit gets hacked all the time. Months and years go by and the FBI and CIA barely figure out who did it. Yet they confirm Russia did this fast? Laughable. 

And if they had actual proof and evidence.....do you really think they wouldn't push for a re VOTE?


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 2, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Only I hate the constant allegations of _*hate *_because I don't believe in unregulated open border invasion, cultural & economic displacement of U.S citizens and the idea because they are brown we are supposed to place their interests above our own.
> 
> Mexico is a third world Narco-terrorist state that I don't want spreading in to my country, it's real simple. No one hates our northern citizens because their citizens don't displace our citizens and I can't think of a single instance of them raping our murdering Americans.
> 
> ...







here you go smartass the biggest Islamaphobe in Canada who passed a law in the canadian charter to allow the RMCP to arrest any Muslim with barely any reason former Prime minister stephen Harper


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> It's that kind of framing that makes political conversation fruitless - you necessarily consider your position in terms of forward movement and anything else as regress instead of weighting the pros and cons. You have to entertain the idea that both sides want the country to improve, they just have different ideas on how that could be achieved.


That would be great if everything was so innocent.  Unfortunately our last republican president started wars for profit under false pretenses and allowed corporations to break laws without any concern for repercussions.  Both sides do *not* want the same things.  Trump has spent his entire life doing things that only benefit himself.  There's no reason to think he won't use the presidency to do the same while everybody else in America gets fucked over.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> That would be great if everything was so innocent.  Unfortunately our last republican president started wars for profit and allowed corporations to break laws without any concern for repercussions.  Both sides do *not* want the same things.  Trump has spent his entire life doing things that only benefit himself.  There's no reason to think he won't use the presidency to do the same while everybody else in America gets fucked over.




And the current almost former president removed a big portion of the deficit in a manner that instead pushes their bills more onto the taxpayer by way of the debt rising.   He also allowed a Healthcare system to be put in place that looks nice, but really is a pile of shit that is costing Americans more money for their own Healthcare and refusal of certain options denied. They also state that unemployment is down. Another sham, you are only recognized unemployed by the government if you are collecting unemployment benefits.   

Both sides do the same shit, don't try to say they don't. 

Maybe you should stop paying attention to who is president so much and more effort to who is being elected into the house and senate.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> That would be great if everything was so innocent.  Unfortunately our last republican president started wars for profit and allowed corporations to break laws without any concern for repercussions.  Both sides do *not* want the same things.  Trump has spent his entire life doing things that only benefit himself.  There's no reason to think he won't use the presidency to do the same while everybody else in America gets fucked over.


Everyone in history has spent their life doing things that benefit them, it should be the core concern of every autonomous individual. As long as he runs the country like a business you should be perfectly fine. As far as wars for profit are concerned, I'm pretty sure Obama isn't exactly innocent either, and the premise of spreading democracy or whatever innate reasoning of the week is used these days is very thin. I don't know why you'd put faith in career politicians who engage in politics with the explicit intent of personal gain - it seems to go against your initial point.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Both sides do the same shit, don't try to say they don't.


Well you just tried to equate starting wars for profit under false pretenses to giving millions of uninsured people healthcare, so you kind of proved my point entirely.  Completely different agendas.



Foxi4 said:


> As long as he runs the country like a business you should be perfectly fine.


That's exactly the attitude that led to the '08 crash.  A country is not a business, and there are a whole lot of things that should not be subject to the profit motive.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Well you just tried to equate starting wars for profit under false pretenses to giving millions of uninsured people healthcare, so you kind of proved my point entirely.  Completely different agendas.


You're oversimplifying the matter. The government can't give anyone anything because it doesn't own jack - it can only take from some to give to others, but mostly to themselves. Many people simply can't afford healthcare anymore under the current rules or their coverage was greatly reduced.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Given millions Healthcare?    Let's put it his way. They made it more beneficial to not work than to work. At our gas station the workers are asking my brother to lower their hours from 25 to 15, because at 25 hrs, even at Super low pay, they cannot afford the Healthcare as almost all the money is going to it.    Just because you like to look at a positive side doesn't make it right. Read up on what it actually is. 90 percent of those who jumped on, woulda got free Healthcare in most states already, they just are now forced to  it.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> You're oversimplifying the matter. The government can't give anyone anything because it doesn't own jack - it can only take from some to give to others, but mostly to themselves. Many people simply can't afford healthcare anymore under the current rules or their coverage was greatly reduced.


I am, but the matter was oversimplified to begin with.  The US healthcare system before Obamacare was hemorrhaging money.  It would've added so much more to the national debt before he left office if he had done nothing.

People don't understand that taxpayers end up footing the bill when somebody has to go to the ER but they don't have insurance.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> But the timing of the leak was too good, just after Trump got elected, but had Clinton got elected, they would've brushed it aside.



The leaks were going on since before the actual voting took place. I knew something was up with your rhetoric and was just watiting to see how far you'd move your goalposts of the "you lost get over it" statement that is the talking point for your "team".

Some of us don't have teams in this except TEAM AMERICA (f*** yeah).  If you think Trump is "your" party, you're duped. Goldman Sachs was evil until multiple people from GS were appointed into his cabinet. Russia was an enemy until he said they weren't.  The swamp needed to be drained until the same old names came in. Pay for Play was the most horrible thing ever by Hillary until Trump appointed his largest donor (McMahon) as head of Small Business Department.

Again, majority have moved on to the "he won" party. It's people like you still keeping it in the "Hillary Lost, you can't change it" field.  The recounts were not about making Hillary win from this side; I heard so many doubts about the system from the winner AFTER he won (millions of illegals, i won this i woulda won that) that I was saying out loud "then let's just count all votes again then!" in the interest of voter transparency.  

I'm in a 100% blue state; it goes blue for everything without fail. The Governor is only (R) now because he ran against a (D) who seriously had two things for his campaign: Worked with previous governor and was black (where I am, that's not a racist statement; it literally was what the guy was banking on). I voted for the (R).

Trust me, if the current names being mentioned to run against him step up he probably will lose because the other folks have actual plans and history. That's besides the point though.

The point is: you need to move on and look at what is in front of you right now. That's what we're looking at. For all your "team"'s hate of the 'Deplorable' label, there doesn't seem to be any backlash to a guy calling over 50% of the voting population "enemies" before he's even in office.  Obama never declared the people who voted against him as "enemies".

Trump has done nothing to showcase unity; he thrives instead on the chaos and separation. He issues his edicts from his ivory tower or golf course resort and lets you come here on forums to cheer your team.  The truth is he'd never talk to you or listen to you at all. He's made that clear.

That's the thing people are nervous about. 

And Obama did a TON of good for the country whether you care to admit it or not. There was bad (drone strikes in particular I have major issues with) and I am still pissed no one came along to "Patch" the ACA like it was intended. Instead they released v1.0, called it "Obamacare" and said "we'll never patch it".  The bottom line is as shitty as premiums went for some (not all), the bleeding was stopped a bit by the ACA OVERALL.  They have never gone done and they will never go down.  Until our country adopts the modern world's healthcare (Single Payer), we are a corporate health system. Trump and Republicans cannot change that. It's retarded.

Of course the general standing of your "team" and the reason the groundswell of support for the lies and grandstanding worked was easy. It's called "FUCK YOU GOT MINE".

People got tired of helping others in the country for 8 years while watching their own business die or jobs not coming back for coal and went "this guy will give me MINE" and bought the fish oil.

Coal ain't coming back. Hillary ain't being locked up. The wall will be a fence if anything.  Promise after promise will be broken and you'll realize the system you voted to change is the same as it's ever been and soon your "team" will turn on him.  And everyone you bitched at as "sore losers" and told to "move on" will just look at your foxboy avatar and go "yeah, we're playing Mario Basketball. Told ya so. Sucks, huh?"


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I am, but the matter was oversimplified to begin with.  The US healthcare system before Obamacare was hemorrhaging money.  It would've added so much more to the national debt before he left office if he had done nothing.
> 
> People don't understand that taxpayers end up footing the bill when somebody has to go to the ER but they don't have insurance.


Blue cross blue shield is at an all time high in profits. Healthcare Reform should have been on hospitals and doctors outrageous pricing that they give just because they can, not on taxpayers compensating by going from 150 a month to 450 a month for coverage. And once you get new plans through it, you can't even have your same doctors, time to find new ones.  Such a great system.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Tons of shit gets hacked all the time. Months and years go by and the FBI and CIA barely figure out who did it. Yet they confirm Russia did this fast? Laughable.
> 
> And if they had actual proof and evidence.....do you really think they wouldn't push for a re VOTE?



Again, it's not about hacking results (seriously Costello, fuck your wording I love you but fuck your wording).  It's about targeted influencing.

You can argue MSM sources ran hit pieces against Trump and were in the bag for Hillary, but we have EQUAL TIME LAWS in America that say no matter how much they write about one candidate, they HAVE to write about the other.  This is why the e-mail server kept being brought up.  The problem with Trump vs Hillary was: Trump kept saying dumb shit and doing dumb shit. The idiot media would report on eVERYTHING he did (free airtime), then have to rehash Clinton shit and even dumb conspiracies due to the the LAWS.

The influencing by targeted hacking and a trickle of releasing is a completely separate issue from the media being stupid.  It was 100% targeted and 100% designed to discredit ONE party and person.  
And if they have ANYTHING on the RNC or Trump, you should be just as concerned because blackmail is very real and who the hell wants the President of their country to be susceptible to blackmail from a foreign country.

And the reason they concluded it so fast and why it isn't "LAUGHABLE" is because they were bragging about it and Trump is on tape at a speech thanking them for it and asking them (even jokingly it's treasonous) to hack Hillary's email more.

They caught China's breaching quickly too and did a lot of behind the scenes against them and have said the "normal" breaches (which is scary in general) have subsided since.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Blue cross blue shield is at an all time high in profits. Healthcare Reform should have been on hospitals and doctors outrageous pricing that they give just because they can, not on taxpayers compensating by going from 150 a month to 450 a month for coverage. And once you get new plans through it, you can't even have your same doctors, time to find new ones.  Such a great system.


I don't understand the logic here.  "Corporations are fucking me over big time...hey, let's elect the most corporately-entrenched republican candidate that there's ever been!"  Things can only get worse from here, so much worse.  It'll only be after Trump repeals Obamacare (assuming he does, he's been flip-flopping on that lately), that the underlying problems with our healthcare system will become clearer.  You won't be able to look past the economic effects.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

My point is, if they can't find the people stealing your credit card info, do not believe they are finding the alleged hacking being done. 


Smiths said:


> Again, it's not about hacking results (seriously Costello, fuck your wording I love you but fuck your wording).  It's about targeted influencing.
> 
> You can argue MSM sources ran hit pieces against Trump and were in the bag for Hillary, but we have EQUAL TIME LAWS in America that say no matter how much they write about one candidate, they HAVE to write about the other.  This is why the e-mail server kept being brought up.  The problem with Trump vs Hillary was: Trump kept saying dumb shit and doing dumb shit. The idiot media would report on eVERYTHING he did (free airtime), then have to rehash Clinton shit and even dumb conspiracies due to the the LAWS.
> 
> ...




So you belive it to be true, from people who said Iraq has WMDS and Cuba has WMDS and yet can't find out who stole your credit card information and used it?   Wanting to belive you will always see it there. Proving it is different, influences or not. That's the point


----------



## Uncanny (Jan 2, 2017)

Well, i wouldnt call that "hacking"


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 2, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Also keep in mind that if popular vote won, the states with the largest population have the biggest influence.
> 
> It's easy to claim a system is rigged or broken when it doesn't go in your favor. You can throw your fits.. but it happens every 4 years. Your choice either wins or loses. If you win, you tell people to get over it. If you lose, you call foul. Can't please everyone.



Then why go by state. Sum population /total votes from everywhere should be doable.

Also is this a win-loss thing? What happens if you have no real skin in the game (hard to argue for the US with it being a country with serious influence outside its borders but not impossible and otherwise possible to be reduced to a manageable/academic level) are more a fan of systems and want to see good ones?


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> As long as he runs the country like a business you should be perfectly fine.



Sir, this is retarded. We don't know how he ran his businesses. The government can't function like a business either due to that pesky Constitution and Representation and Checks and Balances.

One tax release would help everyone so much, but that was another broken promise of his. All we know is he lost a billion dollars and has used existing loopholes to avoid paying federal taxes and says that's "Smart".  So federal highways and roads have not had a dime from Donald.  And sadly that's a grain of sand in the greater beach that is the unknown about his business.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Smiths said:


> Again, it's not about hacking results (seriously Costello, fuck your wording I love you but fuck your wording).  It's about targeted influencing.
> 
> You can argue MSM sources ran hit pieces against Trump and were in the bag for Hillary, but we have EQUAL TIME LAWS in America that say no matter how much they write about one candidate, they HAVE to write about the other.  This is why the e-mail server kept being brought up.  The problem with Trump vs Hillary was: Trump kept saying dumb shit and doing dumb shit. The idiot media would report on eVERYTHING he did (free airtime), then have to rehash Clinton shit and even dumb conspiracies due to the the LAWS.
> 
> ...


Sure, the Russians started their mind control machines and told people what to do with a blast of Gamma rays.

By the way, since we're talking about targeted campaigns to discredit candidates, I wonder what was the benefit of running stories about Trump supposedly being a pervert on national television, or blasting him non stop by calling him a racist, a sexist, a misogynist and probably a reptilian too. Do you think mainstream coverage was fair? Far more people follow the mainstream media, Wikileaks are for Internet nolives like us who have no say and are few in numbers.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> My point is, if they can't find the people stealing your credit card info, do not believe they are finding the alleged hacking being done.
> 
> 
> 
> So you belive it to be true, from people who said Iraq has WMDS and Cuba has WMDS and yet can't find out who stole your credit card information and used it?   Wanting to belive you will always see it there. Proving it is different, influences or not. That's the point



I love the goalpost shift to the WMDs. The WMDs were Cheney pushing crap and lies and I didn't believe that at all.
I believe 17 agencies and I fully believe the ONLY reason Obama went forward with this shit is he was relying on common human decency after the election in hoping Republicans would be HUMANS and go "hey.. some shady shit happened, maybe we should speak about it"... then time went on and they went LA LA LA FUCK YOU GOT MINE so he had to go "oh screw it I'll have to step in"

If anything he erred in not stepping in earlier but he rightly said if he did that before the election you would never have heard the end of it.

And what the hell do you mean they can't find the people stealing my credit card? They know the country 99% of the time if it's a FEDERAL thing.  Jesus how old are you? Do you vote?


----------



## Viri (Jan 2, 2017)

Yes, obv Russia hacked her brain, and told her not to campaign even ONCE in Wisconsin. Hey, at least Hillary broke the "glass ceiling" and became the candidate with the most faithless electors.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not an argument against the electoral college. Were the president elected by the Senate, it would not only be more efficient and less time-consuming, it would also eliminate uneducated voting as a factor in the election. Senators were already given their powers in an election, there's no reason why they couldn't vote on their constituent's behalf - they do it every single day regardless. Elections would be far more simplistic and less prone to politics of appeasement and populist policy.



i think faith in the process is an important aspect as well. I doubt it'd be efficeint, though, in our current climate. too many games of chicken. and intelligence isn't a prerequisite for office .

personally, i'm fine with letting the masses choose the highest office. makes the people have more political power than otherwise, and usually that should mean a push for a better education. the left tends to do better with more education, the right tends to do better with less. dunno why though.

the electorial college almost always votes how the people voted, so i don't see too much harm in them. personally, i'd like to see a change to the first-past-the-post and take out the bigger-bank-balance diplomacy mandate for something better. it'd be a nice change of pace.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Smiths said:


> Sir, this is retarded. We don't know how he ran his businesses. The government can't function like a business either due to that pesky Constitution and Representation and Checks and Balances.
> 
> One tax release would help everyone so much, but that was another broken promise of his. All we know is he lost a billion dollars and has used existing loopholes to avoid paying federal taxes and says that's "Smart".  So federal highways and roads have not had a dime from Donald.  And sadly that's a grain of sand in the greater beach that is the unknown about his business.


Why do you want to know his taxes? There's no legal requirement of him releasing his private financial information. As for his companies, they're on the stock market, their records are public to a great extent, you can look them up anytime.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I don't understand the logic here.  "Corporations are fucking me over big time...hey, let's elect the most corporately-entrenched republican candidate that there's ever been!"  Things can only get worse from here, so much worse.  It'll only be after Trump repeals Obamacare (assuming he does, he's been flip-flopping on that lately), that the underlying problems with our healthcare system will become clearer.  You won't be able to look past the economic effects.


 

Your theory is flawed. Corporations know how to spend less. So far he's also got Boeing agreeing to a lower price and not raping taxpayers to make Air force One. He won't listen to guys who funded him, as he funded himself and has no loyalty to big pharmacy for it. He believes better education will fix the country, which, that is how you fix stuff, you better educate. You just live in the nonsensical world of TV and Media tell me the truth (when it's the truth I want it to be because I am Bias)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> Why do you want to know his taxes? There's no legal requirement of him releasing his private financial information. As for his companies, they're on the stock market, their records are public to a great extent, you can look them up anytime.


Because America thinks the points in the world are what do you pay in taxes, do u like or hate gays, do you like guns. Lol sums up the idiots of our country.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Smiths said:


> I love the goalpost shift to the WMDs. The WMDs were Cheney pushing crap and lies and I didn't believe that at all.
> I believe 17 agencies and I fully believe the ONLY reason Obama went forward with this shit is he was relying on common human decency after the election in hoping Republicans would be HUMANS and go "hey.. some shady shit happened, maybe we should speak about it"... then time went on and they went LA LA LA FUCK YOU GOT MINE so he had to go "oh screw it I'll have to step in"
> 
> If anything he erred in not stepping in earlier but he rightly said if he did that before the election you would never have heard the end of it.
> ...


I love how our are attacking it to discredit the truth. The problem is, you believe them. That's on you. Not me. I'm on evidence and research. Take my word for it, doesn't cut it. You need to educate yourself. They know the country on federal things because they need to target those countries so we can add more money into the military, and their research. I used the examples because those are real and you tried to sift aside the other example, so why not more of the same situation. Educate yourself.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Sure, the Russians started their mind control machines and told people what to do with a blast of Gamma rays.
> 
> By the way, since we're talking about targeted campaigns to discredit candidates, I wonder what was the benefit of running stories about Trump supposedly being a pervert on national television, or blasting him non stop by calling him a racist, a sexist, a misogynist and probably a reptilian too. Do you think mainstream coverage was fair? Far more people follow the mainstream media, Wikileaks are for Internet nolives like us who have no say and are few in numbers.



Actually the election proved the numbers are not as small as you'd think. The rallies which were televised was where he spoke about the leaks, the MSM with his people on spoke about the leaks.
What was the benefit of Bannon trotting out Bill Clinton's people (in the 'he started it' war I guess we can go to that).  The problem is people didn't care how dirty Donald is (and he is), all they knew was he wasn't her and didn't represent her or the system she was in.  She was a horrible candidate no doubt and really only seemed to be running because it was "her turn". 

Unfortunately, Donald has gone right into the swamp, made it worse, and gone against everything he said already in stocking it. 

Back to your "Gamma rays"... be real here for a second sir... people are stupid. people in groups are even stupider.  All they need to hear is a constant stream of negative leaks and channels (Fox News) just talking non stop about them.

People here still think Hillary's private stupid server was the source of the e-mails. They don't care. 
People are very easily influenced, and you can see it in this thread by the people shifting goalposts and spouting untruths that their new president spouted. For a whole "you believe the government where is evidence" we sure are hearing about the illegals in California in the same thread.

So again, sorry sir... but the illegally hacked emails being leaked in the pattern they were... if it swayed any votes... holds this whole poll question true: Russian influenced the Election. Period.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> Why do you want to know his taxes? There's no legal requirement of him releasing his private financial information. As for his companies, they're on the stock market, their records are public to a great extent, you can look them up anytime.



No, his closed hotels and the dealings are not on the stock market. How old are you? There's no legal requirement, no shit. That's the deflection the "tax" question gets (goalpost shift).  The bottom line is it's the issue of transparency, which you seem to favor in the form of hacked and leaked e-mails but not in the form of who gets to run the country.

Hypocrisy under the guise of FYGM, yet again.


----------



## HtheB (Jan 2, 2017)

What has this to do with GBATemp frontpage news? :/


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Smiths said:


> Actually the election proved the numbers are not as small as you'd think. The rallies which were televised was where he spoke about the leaks, the MSM with his people on spoke about the leaks.
> What was the benefit of Bannon trotting out Bill Clinton's people (in the 'he started it' war I guess we can go to that).  The problem is people didn't care how dirty Donald is (and he is), all they knew was he wasn't her and didn't represent her or the system she was in.  She was a horrible candidate no doubt and really only seemed to be running because it was "her turn".
> 
> Unfortunately, Donald has gone right into the swamp, made it worse, and gone against everything he said already in stocking it.
> ...




Your are a tool of the media. Lol end of story. This response just showed you have no clue and CNN is most of your education on politics or anything worldwide.  We really here to teach, you just have to want to learn. Influence lol if these were against Trump you would be hailing them in the face of every American and saying "This guy is shit, look all all this nonsense". Then saying "it wasn't influence it was the truth."


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> By the way, since we're talking about targeted campaigns to discredit candidates, I wonder what was the benefit of running stories about Trump supposedly being a pervert on national television, or blasting him non stop by calling him a racist, a sexist, a misogynist and probably a reptilian too. Do you think mainstream coverage was fair?


Hell, the coverage of him was too kind if anything.  This is a man that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and up his ass.  Much like GWB, his dad/friends of Donald's dad did everything for him his entire life.  He dodged the draft (twice I think), and completely destroyed his mind on cocaine, while simultaneously building his ego with the delusion that he's a "great businessman."  By his own admission he's only made it this far in life by amassing debt and owed favors to a lot of third parties.  Don't assume Russia is the only foreign power involved.

More importantly perhaps you just have to look at who he's put into his cabinet so far and you'll see that even the most extreme detractors were right about him.  Former lobbyists, oil CEOs, and generals.  People who have no experience with politics *or *governing.  Trump can die in a fire for what he's done to this country, and I'll be there to piss on his grave after he does.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Smiths said:


> Actually the election proved the numbers are not as small as you'd think. The rallies which were televised was where he spoke about the leaks, the MSM with his people on spoke about the leaks.
> What was the benefit of Bannon trotting out Bill Clinton's people (in the 'he started it' war I guess we can go to that).  The problem is people didn't care how dirty Donald is (and he is), all they knew was he wasn't her and didn't represent her or the system she was in.  She was a horrible candidate no doubt and really only seemed to be running because it was "her turn".
> 
> Unfortunately, Donald has gone right into the swamp, made it worse, and gone against everything he said already in stocking it.
> ...


Hacking is illegal for a reason, I am not questioning that. What I am questioning is branding release of verified, real e-mail chains containing information that's shady at best as "spreading misinformation". Misinformation is false by definition - if the e-mails were real, which most of them were, then it's not misinformation, and it damn should sway public opinion if the public finds the contents disconcerting. As for Russian involvement, there is no smoking gun, so further investigation is required before drawing a conclusion. Masses very well might be mostly stupid, but they're the ones put in charge.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Your are a tool of the media. Lol end of story. This response just showed you have no clue and CNN is most of your education on politics or anything worldwide.  We really here to teach, you just have to want to learn. Influence lol if these were against Trump you would be hailing them in the face of every American and saying "This guy is shit, look all all this nonsense". Then saying "it wasn't influence it was the truth."



...and you're blocked because you tried to play the "I know you" card. Your posts have shown the classic retort of thinking you know the person you're talking to more than the person knows themselves.

TV News is never on nor has it been on for years. Multitude of news sources are read each day, from all sides.  We know he's an unapologetic liar. It's right there. Don't even remotely try to play the "if X was Y then you'd be Z" card. We're not talking that. We're talking what actually happened. For someone who preaches to people to exist in reality and "educate", you live in hypotheticals. Hence why you're gone on GBATemp to me. God Bless.

Also, Trump didn't need anything to be against him; he still espouses it.  But he's told you people like me are "Enemies", a term no incoming president has used for citizens ever.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Hell, the coverage of him was too kind if anything.  This is a man that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and up his ass.  Much like GWB, his dad/friends of Donald's dad did everything for him his entire life.  He dodged the draft (twice I think), and completely destroyed his mind on cocaine, while simultaneously building his ego with the delusion that he's a "great businessman."  By his own admission he's only made it this far in life by amassing debt and owed favors to a lot of third parties.  Don't assume Russia is the only foreign power involved.
> 
> More importantly perhaps you just have to look at who he's put into his cabinet so far and you'll see that even the most extreme detractors were right about him.  Former lobbyists, oil CEOs, and generals.  People who have no experience with politics *or *governing.  Trump can die in a fire for what he's done to this country, and I'll be there to piss on his grave after he does.


No experience in politics and lots of experience in big business? Sign me up, this aligns with his plan on rebuilding the industrial backbone of the country, you're selling me on Trump here. As for him being rich, that's even better - it's hard to bribe a man who already has it all and doesn't have to plan an expensive retirement in 4 to 8 years.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> No experience in politics and lots of experience in big business? Sign me up, this aligns with his plan on rebuilding the industrial backbone of the country, you're selling me on Trump here. As for him being rich, that's even better - it's hard to bribe a man who already has it all and doesn't have to plan an expensive retirement in 4 to 8 years.



When coal comes to Poland let us know.

And it's amazing how many puppet talking points you have hit in this thread. The "rich people can't be bought" is the dumbest argument ever. Madoff and others laugh at the populous for buying the 'they already have money so you should feel safe' talking point.

Rich businessmen always want more. It's rich philanthropists I would rather have in charge. 

Bill Gates? He's not looking out for him and lining his pocket.
Trump? Always looking for it.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Hell, the coverage of him [Trump] was too kind if anything.


I cannot even begin to imagine what kind of fantasy land you would have to live in to believe this. 



> Trump can die in a fire for what he's done to this country, and I'll be there to piss on his grave after he does.


Not even President yet and he "can die in a fire what he's done"?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Smiths said:


> No, his closed hotels and the dealings are not on the stock market. How old are you? There's no legal requirement, no shit. That's the deflection the "tax" question gets (goalpost shift).  The bottom line is it's the issue of transparency, which you seem to favor in the form of hacked and leaked e-mails but not in the form of who gets to run the country.
> 
> Hypocrisy under the guise of FYGM, yet again.


I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian. I'm no fan of the GOP, they just coincidentally align more with my idea on how to run a country. You seem to have me confused with a bible thumper or a redneck.


----------



## SSG Vegeta (Jan 2, 2017)

The Russians handed Trump the white house "beats" the he'll out of Trump pianiatta


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Smiths said:


> ...and you're blocked because you tried to play the "I know you" card. Your posts have shown the classic retort of thinking you know the person you're talking to more than the person knows themselves.
> 
> TV News is never on nor has it been on for years. Multitude of news sources are read each day, from all sides.  We know he's an unapologetic liar. It's right there. Don't even remotely try to play the "if X was Y then you'd be Z" card. We're not talking that. We're talking what actually happened. For someone who preaches to people to exist in reality and "educate", you live in hypotheticals. Hence why you're gone on GBATemp to me. God Bless.
> 
> Also, Trump didn't need anything to be against him; he still espouses it.  But he's told you people like me are "Enemies", a term no incoming president has used for citizens ever.




That's the difference. You think we think you are the enemy, because your side said we think that way, also I'm not a Republican  (and f you were into any politics or knew about it you'd know Trump is actually a democrat).  All of your points are coming from whathe I see many post from CNN.  Why is it worse that Trump won't show his taxes than leaked emails show Hillary forced a country to lower min wage, so she can control the rice market AND fake a foundation that collected hundreds of millions for stor, relief and barely paid out a few million. That is where you stand. That is something you have to realize and understand and change.

Edit: I call truth nonsense and block you for given me a generality on my opinions cuz I'm too fragile to debate and learn


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Your theory is flawed. Corporations know how to spend less.


Why the fuck would they spend less when it's somebody else's (taxpayer) money?  They have to launder it back into their own pockets somehow.  Did the last corporation-loving republican president spend less?  Or are we still footing the bill for his wars for profit today?



A Plus Ric said:


> So far he's also got Boeing agreeing to a lower price and not raping taxpayers to make Air force One.


Previously he said Boeing was terrible in a tweet, and obviously the CEO bent his ear after that.  Just shows how easily-manipulated Trump is.  It's also a retarded idea to have a commercial jetliner manufacturer create Air Force One.  Almost as retarded as when Trump tried to convert commercial airliners to luxury airliners and went broke in the process.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Why the fuck would they spend less when it's somebody else's (taxpayer) money?  They have to launder it back into their own pockets somehow.  Did the last corporation-loving republican president spend less?  Or are we still footing the bill for his wars for profit today?
> 
> 
> Previously he said Boeing was terrible in a tweet, and obviously the CEO bent his ear after that.  Just shows how easily-manipulated Trump is.  It's also a retarded idea to have a commercial jetliner manufacturer create Air Force One.  Almost as retarded as when Trump tried to convert commercial airliners to luxury airliners and went broke in the process.



Only commercial manufacturers have the facilities/resources/employees necessary to make an aircraft that size/specification.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> No experience in politics and lots of experience in big business? Sign me up, this aligns with his plan on rebuilding the industrial backbone of the country, you're selling me on Trump here. As for him being rich, that's even better - it's hard to bribe a man who already has it all and doesn't have to plan an expensive retirement in 4 to 8 years.


Fuckin Christ, how well did that work in the GWB years?  Sign you up for two more wars for profit, zero corporate regulation, a failing environment and another economic collapse?  Okay...I guess.

And he's not rich, read my other post.  Trump actually has a lot of debt with a lot of different parties.  He'll be using the position of the presidency to try and relieve all of that debt.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian. I'm no fan of the GOP, they just coincidentally align more with my idea on how to run a country. You seem to have me confused with a bible thumper or a redneck.



Nope I don't. You never gave any air of Jesus or Cousin-fuckin'.  I also more aligned with you believe it or not. I'm a "grey".  Both of them sucked I just knew was more corrupt in an honest way (which is weird) and would have done more to not fuck shit up for the short term gain.

The other you knew would go for big oil, appoint anti-environment people to head environmental agencies, etc.  He thrives on conflict. If you worked for him you'd quit because he's the boss that pits two people against eachother thinking it's how to improve business.  It may drive a share up a notch in the market, but everyone's morale and personal life suffers.

Hence the FYGM. Ends justify the means.  Apparently the country wanted that.  It's why his backpedaling on everything he got elected on and has backed away from or altered (Lock her up, build the wall, repeal ACA, drain the swamp) is being justified daily by his talking heads and people online.

The Glorious Leader lies, others pass it down. He answers to nobody.  And people support it.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Why the fuck would they spend less when it's somebody else's (taxpayer) money?  They have to launder it back into their own pockets somehow.  Did the last corporation-loving republican president spend less?  Or are we still footing the bill for his wars for profit today?
> 
> 
> Previously he said Boeing was terrible in a tweet, and obviously the CEO bent his ear after that.  Just shows how easily-manipulated Trump is.  It's also a retarded idea to have a commercial jetliner manufacturer create Air Force One.  Almost as retarded as when Trump tried to convert commercial airliners to luxury airliners and went broke in the process.


Air force one will be built at a fraction of taxpayers money this time around. He's also refusing a salary, which we will have to see if he really does but if he does, that's 400k a year till he dies in more taxpayer savings.if those are both true, off the bat we will save off the bat close to a billion in used deficit just at inauguration day.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Fuckin Christ, how well did that work in the GWB years?  Sign you up for two more wars for profit, zero corporate regulation, a failing environment and another economic collapse?  Okay...I guess.


GWB is not a businessman, he's a career politician, this is a poor analogy.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> ...which is part of the reason why Trump won - he's neither. He's not a career politician and he represents the Republican credo about as well as I represent human decency or politeness. He somehow managed to usurp the GOP and established his own movement within the party, he's a third-party candidate in everything but his name and his election is a triumph of clever trickery over under-the-table politics. He's hated by the Democrats and the Republicans, he's hated by the media, he's hated by big corporations, and if this many powerful entities hate you, you're doing something right. There's a reason why support for him is strong and unwavering despite all sorts of backlash - he's the definition of an anti-establishment individual.
> Hey, the French have two really good reasons to hate Germans. We all do.


I do like some of his policies, but he's a business man before anything else, and that worries me. I wanted Gary Johnson to win but that was a long shot.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 2, 2017)

Smiths said:


> Nope I don't. You never gave any air of Jesus or Cousin-fuckin'.  I also more aligned with you believe it or not. I'm a "grey".  Both of them sucked I just knew was more corrupt in an honest way (which is weird) and would have done more to not fuck shit up for the short term gain.
> 
> The other you knew would go for big oil, appoint anti-environment people to head environmental agencies, etc.  He thrives on conflict. If you worked for him you'd quit because he's the boss that pits two people against eachother thinking it's how to improve business.  It may drive a share up a notch in the market, but everyone's morale and personal life suffers.
> 
> ...


That's fair, I'm glad things are clear in that department. I have a different outlook on the situation, but I can see merit in yours as well. Here's for hoping the truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Air force one will be built at a fraction of taxpayers money this time around. He's also refusing a salary, which we will have to see if he really does but if he does, that's 400k a year till he dies in more taxpayer savings.if those are both true, off the bat we will save off the bat close to a billion in used deficit just at inauguration day.


Refusing a salary doesn't make a damn bit of difference.  Matter of fact it makes me more suspicious that he'll be using the position of president to relieve his debts.  Besides, he's costing taxpayers millions daily with the security requirements in New York.  He claims he'll be traveling from the white house to Trump tower and back very often.  He also insists to keep his woefully incompetent security staff on payroll *in addition* to secret service.  This is not a man saving anybody money.

Oh shit, and then there's the waste of taxpayer dollars before he's even in office on that dipshit Carrier deal where Trump got fleeced and doesn't even realize it.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 2, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> I cannot even begin to imagine what kind of fantasy land you would have to live in to believe this.
> 
> 
> Not even President yet and he "can die in a fire what he's done"?



i mean, he certainly cheated countless young and aspiring men and women out of money and education with his 'university'. he sold all of america all of his failing business ventures as proof of him being a great businessman. despite financial record losses, people can't see him trying to make laws that would help his company and bandname?
not that he derserves to die in a fire for that, but he deserves something for a bunch of things.

and i'm assuming by the time the next election comes around, there will be many more things


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> I do like some of his policies, but he's a business man before anything else, and that worries me. I wanted Gary Johnson to win but that was a long shot.


Gary Johnson is essentially a less rich Trump, who believes in prisons that are for profit, which leads to more policies to throw you in there, which lead to tons of poorly up kept and staffed prisons, many of which have been shut down recently on scandals, some of those he started. It's hard to judge that way,  but I see him as a less wealthy Trump.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> ... Blah blah blah


Dude, honestly, after reading most of your comments i am confused if you are a great troll or extremely delusional. From my viewpoint you just seem to be spewing the same unproven propaganda garbage that every other democrat keeps saying to fuel a fight.

If you care about this country, instead of complaining and fighting, how about contributing to make things better. If you dont care about this country then go to another country that you do care about. But quite frankly, just continually spewing out nonsense and stating that you want to piss on trumps grave is not doing a solitary damn thing to help at all. 

Whether you like it or not, trump will be president. Complaining, fighting, and debating it isnt going to change anything so you are just wasting your time and effort when you could be putting it towards helping things instead of watching it burn. You can not change that trump will be president, so move on from it.


----------



## Returnofganon (Jan 2, 2017)

I doubt it but I would rather be friends with the country who could nuke all of texas


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> GWB is not a businessman, he's a career politician, this is a poor analogy.


Trump isn't a "businessman" either, not in the sense that any of us couldn't be a businessman just by being born to a rich father and having infinite chances to succeed but still failing numerous times anyway.

Besides, the most important element of GWB's presidency was the presence of Dick Cheney.  Trump has his Cheney in Mike Pence.



DeadlyFoez said:


> If you care about this country, instead of complaining and fighting, how about contributing to make things better.


This makes zero sense.  If I care about my country, I shouldn't fight for it?  Who's to say I don't contribute in other ways already?  It doesn't change my will or ability to express my opinion on these issues.


----------



## Smiths (Jan 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's fair, I'm glad things are clear in that department. I have a different outlook on the situation, but I can see merit in yours as well. Here's for hoping the truth is somewhere in the middle.



Again, i've resolved to hit the "ignore the glorious leader until the 20th". I'm in full belief he will be used up and spit out by the Republicans after they get the stuff they've wanted passed for 8 years to become laws (he barely has a senate majority anyway, only takes a few (R)s who hate him [and they do] to not pass things).

Really the poll now is: impeach, quit, killed (which scares me). And if it's "C" the question is: by one of his supporters or a non-supporter?

I'm scarily in a "C1" opinion at times. He brought out a LOT of ugly and said whatever he could to get a vote regardless of fact or fiction.

I've long compared his campaign and win to the Simpsons Episode where Homer becomes head of Sanitation.  We'll all sing "The Garbageman cannnnn" for a few months then it'll go to shit.  And there will be some annnnnnnnngryyyyyy coal miners who were promised things. 

Fuck man, look at him lashing out against the Carrier dude for calling him out? Attacking public citizens for speaking up and instituting Trevor's Axiom? That's some scary shit


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 2, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> If you care about this country, instead of complaining and fighting, how about contributing to make things better. If you dont care about this country then go to another country that you do care about. But quite frankly, just continually spewing out nonsense and stating that you want to piss on trumps grave is not doing a solitary damn thing to help at all.
> 
> Whether you like it or not, trump will be president. Complaining, fighting, and debating it isnt going to change anything so you are just wasting your time and effort when you could be putting it towards helping things instead of watching it burn. You can not change that trump will be president, so move on from it.



god i wish the republicans had followed that sentiment instead of gridlocking american politics for like 8 years.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Gary Johnson is essentially a less rich Trump, who believes in prisons that are for profit, which leads to more policies to throw you in there, which lead to tons of poorly up kept and staffed prisons, many of which have been shut down recently on scandals, some of those he started. It's hard to judge that way,  but I see him as a less wealthy Trump.


If that's true, that's unfortunate. The libertarian party heralded hin as some kind of hero for the people.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

It's why I don't side with any party. I believe in equality, True equality. But that will never happen because the equality we have now Is enforced more with sympathy and moral over freedom. And with freedom you can never be equal. It's a tricky thing to master. So I side on my own and during elections I choose who I think is the least threat at their post.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Fuckin Christ, how well did that work in the GWB years?  Sign you up for two more wars for profit, zero corporate regulation, a failing environment and another economic collapse?


You're delusional. Clinton is as much a warmonger as Bush was, if not moreso, and I doubt her financial support from Saudi Arabia would be good news for the environment.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> You're delusional. Clinton is as much a warmonger as Bush was, if not moreso, and I doubt her financial support from Saudi Arabia would be good news for the environment.


There is exactly a 0% chance that Clinton would have tapped an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.  You're the delusional one if you think you can excuse that away for Trump with hypotheticals.  Shit's real now.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> This makes zero sense.  If I care about my country, I shouldn't fight for it?  Who's to say I don't contribute in other ways already?  It doesn't change my will or ability to express my opinion on these issues.


It makes perfect sense, you just read it wrong... which kinda explains why you are democrat, cant make sense of rather obvious things. Yes, fight for what you believe in, but in the proper place. Arguing on a stupid gamer forum is not going to do a famn thing to change the direction of the US, instead it will only instigate personal bickering on this stupid site.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> There is exactly a 0% chance that Clinton would have tapped an Exxon Mobile CEO for Secretary of State.  You're the delusional one if you think you can excuse that away for Trump with hypotheticals.  Shit's real now.


The people she wanted to put in the Supreme Court are against gay marriage and believe the second amendment does not apply to civilians. So she woulda put some hateful people in a for life position with All the power.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> It makes perfect sense, you just read it wrong... which kinda explains why you are democrat, cant make sense of rather obvious things. Yes, fight for what you believe in, but in the proper place. Arguing on a stupid gamer forum is not going to do a famn thing to change the direction of the US, instead it will only instigate personal bickering on this stupid site.


I didn't start the thread, and you didn't have to open the thread.  I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> There is exactly a 0% chance that Clinton would have tapped an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.  You're the delusional one if you think you can excuse that away for Trump with hypotheticals.  Shit's real now.


I love how you seem to think you can predict the future and claim that trump will screw everything up before giving him a chance. 

Trust me, if we could predict if someone was going to be a failure then you obviously would have been aborted.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> The people she wanted to put in the Supreme Court are against gay marriage and believe the second amendment does not apply to civilians. So she woulda put some hateful people in a for life position with All the power.


She didn't even name anybody specific for the SC, just her criteria.  This sounds like a Breitbart headline.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 2, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> It makes perfect sense, you just read it wrong... which kinda explains why you are democrat, cant make sense of rather obvious things. Yes, fight for what you believe in, but in the proper place. Arguing on a stupid gamer forum is not going to do a famn thing to change the direction of the US, instead it will only instigate personal bickering on this stupid site.


What else is there to do? Just saying the phrase "armed revolution" will put you into the NSA's terrorist database.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> There is exactly a 0% chance that Clinton would have tapped an Exxon Mobile CEO for Secretary of State.  You're the delusional one if you think you can excuse that away for Trump with hypotheticals.  Shit's real now.


I'd rather an Exxon Mobile CEO as Secretary of State than Saudi kings and oil tyrants controlling the purse-strings of the President and her close colleagues. 

Also note that I didn't mention Trump and didn't try to excuse anything, and good job ignoring Clinton's warmongering as well.



Xzi said:


> This sounds like a Breitbart headline.


Translation: "People who have different views from me are bad."


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I love how you seem to think you can predict the future and claim that trump will screw everything up before giving him a chance.


He already fucked up big time with his cabinet picks, this isn't a future thing.



DeadlyFoez said:


> Trust me, if we could predict if someone was going to be a failure then you obviously would have been aborted.


Oh my poor fee fees.  U R 2 EDGY 4 ME.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xiphiidae said:


> I'd rather an Exxon Mobile CEO as Secretary of State than Saudi kings and oil tyrants controlling the purse-strings of the President and her close colleagues.


That's moronic.  "I'd rather have all the world's oil interests controlling us than just one country's."  Clinton clearly would have done more to advance green energy efforts than Trump, regardless of what you think her personal views might have been.




Xiphiidae said:


> Translation: "People who have different views from me are bad."


Any view you want to have is fine, as long as it's actually your opinion and not based on fake fucking news.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> He already fucked up big time with his cabinet picks, this isn't a future thing.
> Oh my poor fee fees.  U R 2 EDGY 4 ME.


Yes, because you know the future and all his cabinet picks will fuck everything up. Christ, give them a god damn chance to prove themselves. You are acting like such an absent minded fool.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> She didn't even name anybody specific for the SC, just her criteria.  This sounds like a Breitbart headline.


Those are her views, her words "we are gonna change the second amendment because it does not mean what the people think it means"  time and time again "I'm against gay marriage, it's between and man and a woman". She would have put them in, and then you're stuck. People don't change according to the line of thinking about Trump.....so why would she?

Did you also forget she got a guy who raped a 14 yr old or whatever so bad that she was in a coma for weeks off on all charges and then bragged and laughed about it?  She also goes to Saudia Arabia, a country EVIL to their women....and flaunts around smiling.....not trying to help them........just smiling.........But hey, that's in the past...............but not with trump.....Nope everything he did is bad.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jan 2, 2017)

(sigh) I think this whole "virus" shit is just another ploy to get the people to blindly follow them by making it seem like they are in danger and the cia has once again managed to protect them, just my two bits though.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Yes, because you know the future and all his cabinet picks will fuck everything up. Christ, give them a god damn chance to prove themselves. You are acting like such an absent minded fool.


We know who they are and we know their motives.  "It's just Adolf...give him a chance."  There, you made me go and jump the nazi shark.  I hope you're proud of yourself.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jan 2, 2017)

@DeadlyFoez Trump is a white supremacist and an egomaniac, so what do you think is gonna happen?


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Any view you want to have is fine, as long as it's actually your opinion and not based on fake fucking news.


Translation: "Anything I don't like is FAKE NEWS and only opinions that I personally approve of are valid."



> That's moronic.  "I'd rather have all the world's oil interests controlling us than just one country's."  Clinton clearly would have done more to advance green energy efforts than Trump, regardless of what you think her personal views might have been.


"You're stupid if you talk about hypotheticals, but it's okay when I do it."



Xzi said:


> We know who they are and we know their motives.  "It's just Adolf...give him a chance."  There, you made me go and jump the nazi shark.  I hope you're proud of yourself.


Thank you for proving yourself to be nothing more than a child.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> People don't change according to the line of thinking about Trump.....so why would she?


Who said people don't change?  Trump claimed to be a democrat at one time, but now he's definitely 100% a corporate-dick sucking republican.



Xiphiidae said:


> "You're stupid if you talk about hypotheticals, but it's okay when I do it."


That's not even a hypothetical, that's based on what each of them said they'd do in regard to green energy.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Who said people don't change?  Trump claimed to be a democrat at one time, but now he's definitely 100% a corporate-dick sucking republican.


Your just proved the point I was getting at. You said something to your sides views, nothing based on facts. I just gave you tons of why Hillary is trash, BIGGER trash than Trump, but nope....let's gloss over that to hate on Trump. Lol


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> He already fucked up big time with his cabinet picks, this isn't a future thing.
> Oh my poor fee fees.  U R 2 EDGY 4 ME.


Yes, because you know the future and all his cabinet picks will fuck everything up. Christ, give them a god damn chance to prove themselves. You are acting like such an absent minded fool.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



lcie nimbus said:


> @DeadlyFoez Trump is a white supremacist and an egomaniac, so what do you think is gonna happen?


What the fuck are you smoking? Are you really that stupid. Where is this evidence of him being rascist? There is absolutely none whatsoever. Jusy a bunch of republicans stating that same bullshit. 

And to the contrary, there is plenty of evidence showing quite the opposite.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Your just proved the point I was getting at. You said something to your sides views, nothing based on facts. I just gave you tons of why Hillary is trash, BIGGER trash than Trump, but nope....let's gloss over that to hate on Trump. Lol


I was a Sanders voter.  Hillary is by no means my idea of the perfect candidate.  That doesn't change the fact that she'd be nearly the polar opposite of Trump in practice.  Somebody with governing experience who knows how to compromise.  What we've ended up with instead is a man who can only lead the ~47% of voters who think like him.  The problem is that if they think like him, they're all only thinking about themselves, and the country will fall into decline as a result.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I was a Sanders voter.  Hillary is by no means my idea of the perfect candidate.  That doesn't change the fact that she'd be nearly the polar opposite of Trump in practice.  Somebody with governing experience who knows how to compromise.  What we've ended up with instead is a man who can only lead the ~47% of voters who think like him.  The problem is that if they think like him, they're all only thinking about themselves, and the country will fall into decline as a result.


She is the exact same as Trump in practice. There is a reason they are such close friends in real life.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> She is the exact same as Trump in practice. There is a reason they are such close friends in real life.


You mean there's a reason they attended that one event together like 20 years ago?  This is conspiracy theory nonsense.  If you believed they were 100% the same in practice you would've been just as likely to vote Hillary.  The differences were numerous and obvious.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Well you just tried to equate starting wars for profit under false pretenses to giving millions of uninsured people healthcare, so you kind of proved my point entirely.  Completely different agendas.



Obama gave someone health insurance? 







Actually idiot he gave them a mandate that said they have to buy it whether they can afford/want it or not while tripling the cost.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Again. You are a mind reader? A psychic? Just shut the fuck up already.


Blow me kid.  If you had lived through the GWB years you would be able to see what's coming, but you were probably born like '09.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jan 3, 2017)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Yes, because you know the future and all his cabinet picks will fuck everything up. Christ, give them a god damn chance to prove themselves. You are acting like such an absent minded fool.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


what do I know ? only the shit I see in the news. I don't believe a single fucking word out of either of their mouth's . remember , NEVER TRUST A POLITICIAN. besides what is politics but a bunch of shitslinging. sorry if I'm wrong in that earlier post, but that's what I see in the news, that's all I have to go on. well then no harm, no foul .


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 3, 2017)

Enough of this. I see no point of trying to


Xzi said:


> Blow me kid.  If you had lived through the GWB years you would be able to see what's coming, but you were probably born like '09.


Bitch, i am likely older than you.

Oh well. I see no point of arguing with a retard. Im out of this useless thread.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I was a Sanders voter.


Sellout Sanders was initially my preferred candidate (though I always had a soft spot for Trump), but his support for Clinton after his [rigged] loss in the primaries, as well as his continued regurgitation of progressive dogma (e.g. "White people don't know what it's like to be poor"), made me realise that I was mistaken. 



> That doesn't change the fact that she'd be nearly the polar opposite of Trump in practice.


I agree, they are opposites: Hillary is the epitome of corruption, who had most of the world shilling for her and still lost, whereas Trump won due to overwhelming popular support despite the fact that the political establishment and every media outlet was set against him.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Sellout Sanders


Bitch please, if anybody has sold out it's Trump, flipped on all his campaign promises.  Now Sanders is still leading the fight against that moron.



Xiphiidae said:


> Trump won due to overwhelming popular support


He didn't even win the popular vote.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> You mean there's a reason they attended that one event together like 20 years ago?  This is conspiracy theory nonsense.  If you believed they were 100% the same in practice you would've been just as likely to vote Hillary.  The differences were numerous and obvious.


Bro you just used percentage in total voters. I let it slide at first but now I'll inform you. The three Big Cities got majority of her Votes.....let's look at the Financial crisis those three big cities have? CHICAGO is a full Democrat run City, they are one of the highest in taxes, cigarettes cost 15 dollars, they tax soda pop, they overtaxed alcohol a shot of bottom shelf garbage is almost 20 dollars. They illegally ran a ring of faked camera traffic violations and brought in over 10 million dollars in illegal tickets. They removed their education from the state Board stating the state was not helping them profit, they are some of the highest paid teachers in the country, they then failed their new system and just expected the state to bail em out. They can't afford, even with all those Democrat taxes to fix roads, they have lost tons of businesses due to overtaking, crime is high, shootings are way up.......but hey, those people know what is needed right? That's just one of those big cities in your nice percentage.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Bitch please, if anybody has sold out it's Trump, flipped on all his campaign promises.  Now Sanders is still leading the fight against that retard.


That was a playful joke on my part, just so you know, but the fact that Sanders supported the very people who rigged his loss cannot be ignored.


----------



## JeepX87 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I was a Sanders voter.  Hillary is by no means my idea of the perfect candidate.  That doesn't change the fact that she'd be nearly the polar opposite of Trump in practice.  Somebody with governing experience who knows how to compromise.  What we've ended up with instead is a man who can only lead the ~47% of voters who think like him.  The problem is that if they think like him, they're all only thinking about themselves, and the country will fall into decline as a result.



Same here, I voted Bernie as well. I had to pick a lesser of two evils. I believe that most wealthy liberal families prefer Hillary, and most middle class and low income voters prefer Bernie, but I know a lot of unhappy democrats in rust belt region picked Trump.

Whoa, political discussion is getting uglier nowadays and I just stay low as possible.

For others, good luck with government and they are notoriously difficult to change the system, also jobs continue to ship overseas for 3-4 decades now but if they come back, it will likely to be automated instead of hire workers with little to no college education. If you want to work in high tech manufacturing jobs so you need to get college degree whichever is related to STEM like computer science, IT, and others.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

JeepX87 said:


> Same here, I voted Bernie as well. I had to pick a lesser of two evils. I believe that most wealthy liberal families prefer Hillary, and most middle class and low income voters prefer Bernie, but I know a lot of unhappy democrats in rust belt region picked Trump.
> 
> Whoa, political discussion is getting uglier nowadays and I just stay low as possible.
> 
> For others, good luck with government and they are notoriously difficult to change the system, also jobs continue to ship overseas for 3-4 decades now but if they come back, it will likely to be automated instead of hire workers with little to no college education. If you want to work in high tech manufacturing jobs so you need to get college degree whichever is related to STEM like computer science, IT, and others.



And in the end Bernie sold out to Hillary for money, after it was proven that the DNC conspired against him so bad that people in high ranks in there started to resign.......only to be picked up by Hillary. Facts are acts she's just as evil, and he allowed it.


----------



## Chary (Jan 3, 2017)

Aurora Wright said:


> I believe the Wikileaks documents really did manipulate public perception (dirt on only one candidate was released, so obviously she came out as the most corrupted).
> Whether it was done by the Russians, I can't know. There's no public evidence. I suppose intelligence agencies know better.


That, or, just maybe, the old rich man that sits in his tower making millions of dollars just doesn't have much dirt to uncover, as opposed to a polititian with a decades-long career, full of definitive shady business.

And the media itself tried to heave as much fake-news "dirt" onto Trump as they possibly could. I'm sure that equally weighed on this whole "public perception". Hillary has more than enough resources to find bad things about Trump, and the worst she could dredge up was him saying "Grab em [women] by the you-know-what" in a locker room tape with another guy. Truth being revealed shouldn't be a negative factor here, Wikileaks did nothing to manipulate anyone. They just provided facts to help people make an informed choice at the voting stations. If it was Russia's fault, I'm thankful to Russia for doing it. If it was an angry DNC leaker, I'm thankful to them. Either way, those leaks were a good thing. 



Clydefrosch said:


> jesus, do you think any of the cia-kiddies that come through this place have any business in tracking foreign hacking attempts on us information systems?


Out of the millions that visit this site, I wouldn't be surprised if there's _one_ person who's put a lot of research into this kind of thing. It's a valid, innocent question.



DeoNaught said:


> but why would they hack the elections?
> I think if anyone would do this, it would be china, because they are closer maybe,
> maybe Russians were like Oh shit we cant let Hillary win


Pretty sure Russia hates Hillary with a passion because of her contentious history with them. The left leaning media is even trying to validate us making aggressive attacks upon Russia. They want to make hating Russia an okay thing. They're trying to throw us into Cold War 2.0



Bubsy Bobcat said:


> This is some great front page video game news right here.


One single out of place news article in a year and everyone goes mad over it lol.



DeadlyFoez said:


> What the fuck are you smoking? Are you really that stupid. Where is this evidence of him being rascist? There is absolutely none whatsoever. Jusy a bunch of republicans stating that same bullshit.


B-B-B-but! CNN told me so! Washington Post says he's a racist and that makes it TRUE!!!!!! The media never lies!



Xzi said:


> I was a Sanders voter.  Hillary is by no means my idea of the perfect candidate.  That doesn't change the fact that she'd be nearly the polar opposite of Trump in practice.  Somebody with governing experience who knows how to compromise.  What we've ended up with instead is a man who can only lead the ~47% of voters who think like him.  The problem is that if they think like him, they're all only thinking about themselves, and the country will fall into decline as a result.


Someone with governing experience who has screwed up royally at every turn. People are sick of corruption and shady politicians screwing them over, so they said, okay, we need change, and Trump will be our only way to change things. It may not be good, it might not be bad, but it sure won't be stagnant, same old garbage that we've seen the past 16 years. You're acting like you know that the country will decline, as an absolute. Give Trump and his picks a fair chance before you condemn them


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> He didn't even win the popular vote.


It's a good thing that US has a system where votes are semi-normalised by state so that populated, more urban states don't tyrannise less populated, more rural states then.



Chary said:


> ~snip~


I agree with everything you said 100%. Excellently summarised what I've been thinking.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Chary said:


> It may not be good, it might not be bad, but it sure won't be stagnant, same old garbage that we've seen the past 16 years.


Man, I don't think you're remembering the last 16 years right.  Definitely not the last 8.  We had a massive recession and then our next president brought us out of that all the way to unemployment at less than 5%.  Things have not been "stagnant" by any means.



Chary said:


> You're acting like you know that the country will decline, as an absolute. Give Trump and his picks a fair chance before you condemn them


There's nowhere for us to go from here except down.  Just about everything Obama did was to insulate us from the possibility of another economic recession.  Whether that be caused by healthcare industry costs, corporations playing fast and loose with other people's money, the actions of a foreign country, whatever.  Trump has no ideas of his own (none that he's willing to tell us, aka none at all), so when he repeals everything Obama put in place, what will be the safeguard then?



Xiphiidae said:


> It's a good thing that US has a system where votes are semi-normalised by state so that populated, more urban states don't tyrannise less populated, more rural states then.


Except you specifically said he "won with overwhelming popular support."


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Man, I don't think you're remembering the last 16 years right.  Definitely not the last 8.  We had a massive recession and then our next president brought us out of that all the way to unemployment at less than 5%.  Things have not been "stagnant" by any means.
> 
> 
> There's nowhere for us to go from here except down.  Just about everything Obama did was to insulate us from the possibility of another economic recession.  Whether that be caused by healthcare industry costs, corporations playing fast and loose with other people's money, the actions of a foreign country, whatever.  Trump has no ideas of his own (none that he's willing to tell us, aka none at all), so when he repeals everything Obama put in place, what will be the safeguard then?




Your theory is wrong.  The United States government only recognizes a citizen as unemployed, if you are collecting unemployment.

Also, the recession is the same as it was. What he did was move the deficit (the government's problem with over staffing and overpaying funds that aren't accounted for) to the national debt (technically money owed by the taxpayer.)


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Also, the recession is the same as it was. What he did was move the deficit (the government's problem with over staffing and overpaying funds that aren't accounted for) to the national debt (technically money owed by the taxpayer.)


Lol this guy.  "Recession is the same as it was" he says.  Everybody was losing money rapidly in the recession, I've done nothing but make money during most of the Obama years.

National debt was always going to keep going up, we're still paying for two republican wars, and they've exacerbated other tensions in the region too of course.  I don't expect Trump to spend less in this regard, more if anything.


----------



## Chary (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Just about everything Obama did was to insulate us from the possibility of another economic recession.


yes, cuz taxing the middle class and choking them with forced, costly Obamacare as well as letting jobs be outsourced to foreign countries is insulating the people and keeping them safe.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

chrisrlink said:


> the entire electoral college deal is a scam imo we vote for president but do we really? the answer is no the american democracy system is total b*llsh!t we think we're free but in reallity no like freedom of speech I could probably be put in prison for saying all of this under the notion of "act of terrorism" we're in fact I'm just an angry guy who refuses to bend to the will of my government I am threatening no high position official am I? and because I'm a Muslim convert I am seriously under their microscope i bet


Yeah, apparently the electoral college was only invented because the founding fathers of the us thought there should be some kind of buffer during elections, because they belived that the common folk werent smart enough to make the right decision. They are only partially right in doing so.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 3, 2017)

Chary said:


> yes, cuz taxing the middle class and choking them with forced, costly Obamacare as well as letting jobs be outsourced to foreign countries is insulating the people and keeping them safe.



Ah yes, nothing like "affordable" healthcare that people working at a capped 15 hour a week can afford since your boss is too stingy to give more hours. That's definitely affordable alright. Yes, everyone should have the right to healthcare, but ACA is *NOT *the way to do it. Luckily if you don't make a certain amount for a threshold, you're exempt from that BS penalty.  Thanks Obama.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Lol this guy.  "Recession is the same as it was" he says.  Everybody was losing money rapidly in the recession, I've done nothing but make money during most of the Obama years.
> 
> National debt was always going to keep going up, we're still paying for two republican wars, and they've exacerbated other tensions in the region too of course.  I don't expect Trump to spend less in this regard, more if anything.


It isnt? Why is GB and all the recession and giant drop there.....why is the gbp still hold more value than the dollar? Oh that's right because we are still in a shit ass recession.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Chary said:


> yes, cuz taxing the middle class and choking them with forced, costly Obamacare as well as letting jobs be outsourced to foreign countries is insulating the people and keeping them safe.


We've already discussed this previously in the thread.  This is a vast oversimplification.  The two most important things to note in regard to healthcare are: what was passed is not what Obama originally wanted out of the system, and the healthcare sector in the US without any kind of reform would have cost the taxpayers far more money than it did with Obamacare.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Except you specifically said he "won with overwhelming popular support."


Which is true, given the fact that every single major media outlet was fighting for Hillary and claiming that there was effectively no chance that Trump would win. The disconnect between the "presented" public opinion (e.g. every celebrity etc. saying "I'm with Her") and the actual public opinion (46% of votes and 306 pledged electoral votes) is what makes that support overwhelming.



Xzi said:


> ~snip~


"Blame Bush for everything bad that Obama did." Next you'll be saying that it's Bush's fault that the US intervened in Libya!



Xzi said:


> what was passed is not what Obama originally wanted out of the system, and the healthcare sector in the US without any kind of reform would have cost the taxpayers far more money than it did with Obamacare.


"It's not Obama's fault because he's a bad negotiator."


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Ah yes, nothing like "affordable" healthcare that people working at a capped 15 hour a week can afford since your boss is too stingy to give more hours. That's definitely affordable alright. Yes, everyone should have the right to healthcare, but ACA is *NOT *the way to do it. Luckily if you don't make a certain amount for a threshold, you're exempt from that BS penalty.  Thanks Obama.


Actually part timers are asking for Less Hours because once u hit over that, they can't afford it and the gov makes em pay anyways.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 3, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> Actually part timers are asking for Less Hours because once u hit over that, they can't afford it and the gov makes em pay anyways.



And here I am not being able to pay for any of the plans thanks to being underemployed. Whoever thought of penalizing the middle class was a good idea, esp. those who don't make much, is full of BS. And before people start arguing that you have to have insurance for a car as a good analogy is a bad analogy, you're not required to own a car, why should someone be required to pay a fee if they don't make ends meet?


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

That's how enforcing people to buy or have insurance differs from giving Healthcare. The only people profiting are the insurance companies.


----------



## MENTALDOMINANCE (Jan 3, 2017)

I hate how simple minded the people making these headlines are.
And they're catering to an even more simple minded public!
Even the idea... "Hacked the election" is ridiculous.

In order for the "election" to be "hacked", there would basically have to be an infiltration
on the system that records the votes themselves. You know, the machines that you stick the
sheet into after you have voted? If there was a breach on these systems, it would be a 100% thing,
not something they aren't sure of. Secondly, the first thing most hackers do when they hack a place is
nuke the logs. How do you know who hacked you? You check the logs. Where did it come from?
Well... If the logs have been nuked are altered, there's no way to know. Anyone smart knows this.
It's all so absurd. They probably haven't even thought this far about it when they say "hacked the
election", it's such a ridiculous statement. Most people are completely computer illiterate and to them,
hacking is done by someone just sitting in front of a computer and typing some stuff and then...
BAM! They can just do anything, have access to anything, etc. They have no concept on how things
are interconnected, etc - AFAIK, the voting system isn't even online. Why would it be? These machines
all sit at the locations people vote at and then, when all votes are received, the data is sent to a main
HQ to be tallied. It's a software system written by some contracted software company. I am sure that if
numbers being tallied don't make sense, there are ways of verifying things. You know? Go to the source
machine and check. If it was hacked, where was it infiltrated? Did they access the main HQ where everything
is tallied and send false numbers? Ok. From where? It would have to say from a valid location.
So go to that location. Are the numbers the same or not? It's not that difficult to find out.
I seriously believe the current administration is extremely corrupt and just taking advantage of the public's
ignorance towards technology and how these things actually work.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Which is true


No it's not, it doesn't matter how you spin it lol.  He lost the popular vote.



Xiphiidae said:


> "Blame Bush for everything bad that Obama did." Next you'll be saying that it's Bush's fault that the US intervened in Libya!


GWB would never have been capable of operations as efficient as Libya.



Xiphiidae said:


> "It's not Obama's fault because he's a bad negotiator."


I agree, he should've been our first black president AND a dictator.  I'm sure he would've got a lot more done and had less resistance then.  /s


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> No it's not, it doesn't matter how you spin it lol.  He lost the popular vote.
> 
> 
> GWB would never have been capable of operations as efficient as Libya.
> ...


He kinda acted like a dictator...lol he had how many executive orders? And how many more laws were passed by the threat of them? Lol


----------



## Chary (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> We've already discussed this previously in the thread.  This is a vast oversimplification.  The two most important things to note in regard to healthcare are: what was passed is not what Obama originally wanted out of the system, and the healthcare sector in the US without any kind of reform would have cost the taxpayers far more money than it did with Obamacare.


does it matter what he wanted? Like, at all? Because the end result that what was forced on the people is his fault either way. Best to have had a smarter, more efficient, and better thought out plan that would have taken longer, as opposed to a hoard of lies and deceit that was shoved into legislation. Obama could have done so much better, but instead, he's just hurting the middle and lower classes: one of america's biggest pillars. "If you want that Doctor, you can keep that Doctor!*"
*Rules and restrictions may apply. Doctor will probably not be able to be kept, and you'll be fined out of your mind ;D


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> He kinda acted like a dictator...lol he had how many executive orders?


GWB did 291 executive orders, Obama did 260.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> No it's not, it doesn't matter how you spin it lol.  He lost the popular vote.


I never claimed he did, just that the fact that he was won resoundingly despite the world being against him is amazing, and, whether you support him or not, a triumph of democracy and populism over corruption. Also the popular vote is not and should not be a determiner of victory. 



> GWB would never have been capable of operations as efficient as Libya.


Good to know that you're a warmongering sociopath as well.



> I agree, he should've been our first *mixed-race* president AND a dictator.  I'm sure he would've got a lot more done and had less resistance then.  /s


Oh, don't worry, he was already one of the most authoritarian presidents the US has had in quite a while.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> whether you support him or not, a triumph of corruption and populism over democracy.


Well, I can't disagree on that point.



Xiphiidae said:


> Good to know that you're a warmongering sociopath as well.


You remember that Libya had a dictator in the process of killing his own people, right?  Or is that not the case in your anti-fact world?



Xiphiidae said:


> Oh, don't worry, he was already the most authoritarian president the US has had in a long time.


I wish, then he wouldn't step down and allow the actual authoritarian to take power.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> GWB did 291 executive orders, Obama did 260.


I didn't say anything about Bush. I said Obama. Lol you trying to compromise I never said Bush didn't act like a dictator, I replied to you that Obama kinda did. But you still can't explain own after a giant recession to GB that the pound is still more valuable than the US DOLLAR but we are out of recession thanks to Obama........I'll wait.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> I didn't say anything about Bush. I said Obama. Lol you trying to compromise I never said Bush didn't act like a dictator, I replied to you that Obama kinda did. But you still can't explain own after a giant recession to GB that the pound is still more valuable than the US DOLLAR but we are out of recession thanks to Obama........I'll wait.


I was just trying to compare his number to another recent president.  Bill Clinton had 364 for more perspective.  Sorry to disprove your notion that Obama had a lot of EOs so non-nonchalantly.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> You remember that Libya had a dictator in the process of killing his own people, right?  Or is that not the case in your anti-fact world?


And how did that turn out in Iraq, again? I'm sure Islamists will prove to be a much better replacement, at any rate :^) It's good to see that you're a fan of interventionist regime change only when Dems do it.



> Well, I can't disagree on that point.
> I wish, then he wouldn't step down and allow the actual authoritarian to take power.


Do you actually have anything to back up your claims at all, or are you just going to cry over and over like a child? You need to realise that your behaviour is indicative of why Trump won, and why Globalism and Progressivism are losing more and more around the world.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> It's good to see that you're a fan of interventionist regime change only when Dems do it.


If we weren't already at war in the region there would have been no need to interfere in the first place.  I'm with you that the illegal "war on terror" never should have been initiated, but now we're likely to see worse from Trump.




Xiphiidae said:


> Progressivism are losing more and more around the world.


It's not about "winning" or "losing," that mindset is the whole problem.  It's about doing what's best for the country and fighting against those who clearly intend to do it harm.  The US's authority on the world stage has already been considerably diminished just from electing such an unfit leader.


----------



## JeepX87 (Jan 3, 2017)

Seriously, I rather to see Russians to hacking Xbox One and PS4 so we can have CFW and save sharing (or save resigner software) nowadays.

That all I care but sadly, both consoles are unhackable.


----------



## A Plus Ric (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> If we weren't already at war in the region there would have been no need to interfere in the first place.  I'm with you that the illegal "war on terror" never should have been initiated, but now we're likely to see worse from Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about "winning" or "losing," that mindset is the whole problem.  It's about doing what's best for the country and fighting against those who clearly intend to do it harm.  The US's authority on the world stage has already been considerably diminished just from electing such an unfit leader.




We have armed everyone that's done harm here past 30 years. Lol or a threat to us.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

A Plus Ric said:


> We have armed everyone that's done harm here past 30 years. Lol or a threat to us.


We've armed a lot of people that haven't done harm to us as well.  We're the US, we basically just arm everybody.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> If we weren't already at war in the region there would have been no need to interfere in the first place.  I'm with you that the illegal "war on terror" never should have been initiated, but now we're likely to see worse from Trump.


Again, you're delusional. While I am against the so-called "War on Terror", Trump is a non-interventionist. He will not pursue regime change, but instead actually fight terrorism instead of supporting it as the Republicans and Democrats have done.



> It's not about "winning" or "losing," that mindset is the whole problem.  It's about doing what's best for the country and fighting against those who clearly intend to do it harm.


What is "best for the country"? Do you get to decide that? You do realise that the people who vote for things differently than you do so because they want what's best for their country as well, right?

For the record, from my perspective (and that of many others), progressives are more liable to do damage to the US, as they have already done in Europe.



> The US's presence on the world stage has already been considerably diminished just from electing such an unfit leader.


There are plenty of people around the world who are happy with Trump's victory.

And, again, do you get to decide what "unfit" is?


----------



## Chary (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> If we weren't already at war in the region there would have been no need to interfere in the first place.  I'm with you that the illegal "war on terror" never should have been initiated, .


Woah, we found an agreement point. Pack it up guys, we did it! Hooray!



Xzi said:


> world stage has already been considerably diminished just from electing such an unfit leader.


Wait wait wait, no. Nevermind. I'm pretty sure lots of foreign leaders/political figures are ecstatic at Trump winning. Farange, Netanyahu, Putin, Teresa May, and many others are excited to discuss plans with Trump. We were almost on bad terms with Israel, and Trump's persuasive skills salvaged that. Plus, the dollar has almost matched the value of the Euro since Trump's election. I don't see how our social standings with other countries has diminished.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Trump is a non-interventionist.


That's hilarious.  He's not even president yet but he's already stepping on Obama's toes when it comes to foreign relations, and Trump hasn't been pacifist about it at all.  He's already threatened to start a nuclear arms race, lol.



Xiphiidae said:


> What is "best for the country"?


Putting literally anybody but Trump in charge.  Mike Pence is basically president anyway, we might as well make it official instead of being condescending to Donny.




Xiphiidae said:


> From my perspective (and that of many others), progressives are more liable to do damage to the US, as they have already done in Europe.


Yes I'm familiar with this perspective.  That for somebody else to gain something, you have to lose something, right?  It's just tribalism and base instinct, it's not a good way to view the world.



Xiphiidae said:


> And, again, do you get to decide what "unfit" is?


I mean, Trump is less mentally competent than Alzheimer's Reagan was.  Probably got a touch of the dementia himself.


----------



## Pluupy (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Putting literally anybody but Trump in charge.  Mike Pence is basically president anyway, we might as well make it official instead of being condescending to Donny.


The only reason Pence is VP is because Trump uses him to avoid his removal. _"See him, guys? HE'S worse than me. If you don't want him to be president, you shouldn't assassinate or impeach me."
_
But seriously tho, no he absolutely is not. lol


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> That's hilarious. He's not even president yet but he's already stepping on Obama's toes when it comes to foreign relations, and Trump hasn't been pacifist about it at all.  He's already threatened to start a nuclear arms race, lol.


Evidently you don't know what "non-interventionist" means. (Hint: it's not the same thing as pacifism.)



> Putting literally anybody but Trump in charge.  Mike Pence is basically president anyway, we might as well make it official instead of being condescending to Donny.


Anything to substantiate this at all, or..?



> Yes I'm familiar with this perspective.  That for somebody else to gain something, you have to lose something, right?  It's just tribalism and base instinct, it's not a good way to view the world.


I have no idea what you're talking about here.



> I mean, Trump is less mentally competent than Alzheimer's Reagan was.  Probably got a touch of the dementia himself.


All you have is childish name-calling. Sad.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Chary said:


> Wait wait wait, no. Nevermind. I'm pretty sure lots of foreign leaders/political figures are ecstatic at Trump winning. Farange, Netanyahu, Putin, Teresa May, and many others are excited to discuss plans with Trump. We were almost on bad terms with Israel, and Trump's persuasive skills salvaged that. Plus, the dollar has almost matched the value of the Euro since Trump's election. I don't see how our social standings with other countries has diminished.


Great, Putin and Netanyahu are our best friends now.  Let's just forget how many conflicts these two have tried to involve us in and will involve us in, right?  It's not like Israel is trying to spur a war with Iran or something.

Jesus, rose-colored glasses much?


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Great, Putin and Netanyahu are our best friends now.  Let's just forget how many conflicts these two have tried to involve us in and will involve us in, right?  It's not like Israel is trying to spur a war with Iran or something.
> 
> Jesus, rose-colored glasses much?


Wait, so do you want world leaders to like the US, or not?


----------



## Chary (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Great, Putin and Netanyahu are our best friends now.  Let's just forget how many conflicts these two have tried to involve us in and will involve us in, right?  It's not like Israel is trying to spur a war with Iran or something.
> 
> Jesus, rose-colored glasses much?


Being on good terms with a country is better than being on bad terms/going to war against. Hello? I never once said "ally" or "best friend". Just "good terms with".


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Wait, so do you want world leaders to like the US, or not?


I want to stay allies with our allies and not throw them under the bus to side with extremists and dictators instead.  Crazy, I know.  Putin and Netanyahu do not have the US's best interests at heart.  They'll take advantage of Trump's ignorance.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I want to stay allies with our allies and not throw them under the bus to side with extremists and dictators instead.  Crazy, I know.


Then it's a good thing that Israel is 'America's greatest ally', I suppose. Why would you want to arbitrarily support allies because they're allies, instead of having a nuanced and pragmatic approach to geopolitics?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> a nuanced and pragmatic approach to geopolitics?


And you think that's the approach Trump is/will be taking?  Rofl.  Got some bad news for ya.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> And you think that's the approach Trump is/will be taking?  Rofl.  Got some bad news for ya.


It'll be better than what establishment Republicans and Democrats have been doing. And certainly better than what you are advocating for.


----------



## JeepX87 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> And you think that's the approach Trump is/will be taking?  Rofl.  Got some bad news for ya.



Yes, that why I give them more time to get reality so they will realize that our government isn't working as advertised or promised.

Same goes with all presidents so Trump is no exception.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> It'll be better than what establishment Republicans and Democrats have been doing. And certainly better than what you are advocating for.


Thus far his only notable foreign policy move has been pissing off China.  Because that's what his supporters want I'm sure: higher Walmart prices.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Thus far his only notable foreign policy move has been pissing off China. Because that's what his supporters want I'm sure: higher Walmart prices.


"Cheaper candy bars are more important than sovereignty and local jobs." You sound just like a Remain supporter.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> "Cheaper candy bars are more important than sovereignty and local jobs." You sound just like a Remain supporter.


I'm not a Walmart shopper, that's obviously Trump's demographic.  I'll pay a little more for products of actual quality.

More importantly: what are the positives in pissing off a strong trade partner like China?  Are we going to go to war with them?  That would last for-fucking-ever, and they've got way more people.  Please explain to me Trump's thinking here.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I'm not a Walmart shopper, that's obviously Trump's demographic.


Well done. Straight-up elitism and painting all Trump voters with the same brush in the same sentence. 

Hint: Elitism and disdain for ordinary Americans is why you lost, and Trump supporters/voters are actually far more diverse than what you give them credit for.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Well done. Straight-up elitism and painting all Trump voters with the same brush in the same sentence.


If the shoe from Walmart fits...

They all got conned by Trump, so they're all certainly dumb enough for that.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> If the shoe from Walmart fits...
> 
> They all got conned by Trump, so they're all certainly dumb enough for that.


Just going to double-down on that arrogant elitism? Here's a shocking fact: just people people share different political views than you doesn't mean that they're any less intelligent.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Just going to double-down on that arrogant elitism? Here's a shocking fact: just people people share different political views than you doesn't mean that they're any less intelligent.


I don't care what their political views are, if they voted Trump then they voted against their own interests.  Worse is that they won't even realize it for years to come.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I don't care what their political views are, if they voted Trump then they voted against their own interests.  Worse is that they won't even realize it for years to come.


Wait, are you saying that people _should_ be selfish? Weren't people supposed to support what's best for their country?

Maybe, just maybe, they have different ideas about what's good for themselves and their country than you do


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

How about this.... Everyone is going to have their own opinion and thats the beauty of it alll.
Until the thought police take over, which is slowly happening.
Also The USA is one of the most communist countries on this rock!
The only thing in America that your free to do, is go find another job just to turn around after being forced to work 80 hr weeks and give 50% of your check to, not to mention always being taxed for everything all the other times. Democracy? That's a Joke!


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I don't care what their political views are, if they voted Trump then they voted against their own interests.  Worse is that they won't even realize it for years to come.



What if my interest was avoiding having to listen to that shrieking criminal harpy Clinton for four years?

This is why modern liberalism is being rejected, the ego maniacal sociopathy of socialist globalists like yourself declaring yourself arbiter of what my interests are.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Wait, are you saying that people _should_ be selfish? Weren't people supposed to support what's best for their country?


When you support the working class you end up lifting yourself up too, you can have your cake *and *eat it.  With Trump all we're going to get to eat is a massive mountain of bullshit.  Maybe some piss to drink from all that trickle-down economics.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

98% of the people on here have no business talking about politics as they dont even understand it cause their too young. There is No since for anybody arguing about this topic here. Their are mature sites for that where there are mature individuals that know whats really going on. #PIZZAGATE is all I have to say...


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> When you support the working class you end up lifting yourself up too, you can have your cake *and *eat it.  With Trump all we're going to get to eat is a massive mountain of bullshit.  Maybe some piss to drink from all that trickle-down economics.


Yep, because nothing's better for the working class than moving all of their jobs overseas and taking in waves of migrants to bludge off welfare!


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Yep, because nothing's better for the working class than moving all of their jobs overseas and taking in waves of migrants to bludge off welfare!


I know right, look at all those jobs Trump has shipped overseas from his businesses already.  Just going to get worse.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I know right, look at all those jobs Trump has shipped overseas from his businesses alone already.  Just going to get worse.


Your just another victim of the MSM.  Bro Trump has kept those jobs here and kept them from leaving, and thats a fact!
Also he has done more not being president yet than Obama has ever done being our illegal president.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I know right, look at all those jobs Trump has shipped overseas from his businesses alone already. Just going to get worse.


Trump has been consistently against jobs moving overseas for decades now. Maybe his businesses' jobs went overseas because he couldn't control that, which is now what he's trying to change? At any rate, Globalists like you certainly aren't helping. 

When I first became politically active I was a Leftist because I care (and still do, strongly) about support the working class (I come from a working class background myself), and it was people like you that made me realise that leftists/progressives don't actually care about people's well-being or quality of life, they only care about ideology.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Bro Trump has kept those jobs here and kept them from leaving, and thats a fact!


I really hope you're not talking about the idiotic Carrier deal in which the taxpayers have to pay out for corporate welfare and half the jobs go away now while the other half go away due to automation later.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Trump has been consistently against jobs moving overseas for decades now. Maybe his businesses' jobs went overseas because he couldn't control that, which is now what he's trying to change? At any rate, Globalists like you certainly aren't helping.
> 
> When I first became politically active I was a Leftist because I care (and still do, strongly) about support the working class (I come from a working class background myself), and it was people like you that made me realise that leftists/progressives don't actually care about people's well-being or quality of life, they only care about ideology.


Your absolutely right!
But beware that the parties flip flopped and I am unsure you realize that.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Trump has been consistently against jobs moving overseas for decades now


All his daughter's shit still gets made in China and the vast majority of Trump's buildings are made with foreign materials.  He's never supported domestic labor.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I really hope you're not talking about the idiotic Carrier deal in which the taxpayers have to pay out for corporate welfare and half the jobs go away now while the other half go away due to automation later.


Ford's in Kentucky is another one that is no longer moving to mexico!


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> All his daughter's shit still gets made in China and the vast majority of Trump's buildings are made with foreign materials.  He's never supported domestic labor.


I recommend you read my post again.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> All his daughter's shit still gets made in China and the vast majority of Trump's buildings are made with foreign materials.  He's never supported domestic labor.


And your point?  The American flags say Made in China also...


----------



## barronwaffles (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> GWB would never have been capable of operations as efficient as Libya.





Xzi said:


> You remember that Libya had a dictator in the process of killing his own people, right?  Or is that not the case in your anti-fact world?



You and your ilk are what's fucking wrong with the world.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Ford's in Kentucky is another one that is no longer moving to mexico!


I have a feeling we'll suddenly see a rash of companies saying that they're "moving to Mexico" just so that idiot Trump will give them free money.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Time will prove everything,
But I can guarantee that if Trump did not run for POTUS,
all those people that were against him would still be lined up for all his parties. Just throwin that out there...


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

barronwaffles said:


> You and your ilk are what's fucking wrong with the world.


Hey buddy, I can judge you without knowing anything about you too.  You're a real piece of shit, you know that?  All you do all day is huff glue.  Your dying grandma pays all your bills.  Wtf man, pull your shit together.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Trump took on the WHOLE world and won single handedly!  Least the guy has more balls than anyone else in this shitty world.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Hey buddy, I can judge you without knowing anything about you too.  You're a real piece of shit, you know that?  All you do all day is huff glue.  Your dying grandma pays all your bills.  Wtf man, pull your shit together.



I'll pretend to be shocked.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 3, 2017)

This makes me remember some very old gateway hype train thread.
It has already derailed and turned into useless name calling BS posts like no other thread in years.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Trump took on the WHOLE world and won single handedly!  Least the guy has more balls than anyone else in this shitty world.


He's a white man in America, let's not pretend nobody has ever faced greater odds.  Also, I'd give Kellyanne Conway way more credit for Trump's win than Trump himself.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Middle eastern ideoligy is whats wrong with this world!
If anybody truly believes if they kill christians, beat and rape their wives and kids and recieve 72 virgins when they go to heaven, has not a lick of sense whatsoever.


----------



## I pwned U! (Jan 3, 2017)

As far as I am concerned, there is little to no evidence proving that Russia was behind anything.


Spoiler: * Inb4 Lacius enters this thread to praise Hillary and blame everyone else for her loss... *


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

I pwned U! said:


> As far as I am concerned, there is little to no evidence proving that Russia was behind anything.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: * Inb4 Lacius enters this thread to praise Hillary and blame everyone else for her loss... *
> ...



You nailed that one right on the head bro!


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Hey buddy, I can judge you without knowing anything about you too.


"Judging someone's views based upon what they've said is the same as judging their personal characteristics based on zero knowledge."

Okay then.



Xzi said:


> He's a white man in America, let's not pretend nobody has ever faced greater odds.


Before Trump Victory: "There's no way Trump will win! Look at how much he's losing in the polls!"

After Trump Victory: "Well of course Trump won, we live in a White Supremacist Nazi Dictatorship!"


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> He's a white man in America, let's not pretend nobody has ever faced greater odds.  Also, I'd give Kellyanne Conway way more credit for Trump's win than Trump himself.



And the white hating racist who wants hands out for his "people" exposes himself.

My interest is disenfranchising people who would make this stupid comment.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

you wonder why Trump won?  Because it was of all the Left's actions that put him where he is today, POTUS!
And No Lives Matter unless All lives Matter. Denial is a far left Liberal disease.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Anybody know who Americas 1st President Was?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Before Trump Victory: "There's no way Trump will win!"


I wasn't one of these people.  I knew he could win, especially after this country was stupid enough to elect GWB twice.



Xiphiidae said:


> After Trump Victory: "Well of course Trump won, we live in a White Supremacist Nazi Dictatorship!"


I mean, that could only be the case after he won.



jimbo13 said:


> And the white hating racist who wants hands out for his "people" exposes himself.


Well I'm white, so my people already get plenty of handouts.  Matter of fact, Southern mostly-white red states are the biggest consumers of welfare by far.  Hilarious when white people rail against other white people for being "moochers."


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Well I'm white, so my people already get plenty of handouts.  Matter of fact, Southern white red states are the biggest consumers of welfare by far.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


>


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Well I'm white, so my people already get plenty of handouts.  Matter of fact, Southern mostly-white red states are the biggest consumers of welfare by far.  Hilarious when white people rail against other white people for being "moochers."


"Welfare = good when non-white. Welfare = bad when white." 

"Some white people receive welfare therefore no whites should criticise any implementation of welfare."

How does it feel to be a more racist than any Trump supporter?


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


>



It's peoples mindsets like this are the reasons why we are where we are and that is survivng not living.  THIS IS NOT A GAME.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> "Welfare = good when non-white. Welfare = bad when white."
> 
> "Some white people receive welfare therefore no whites should criticise any implementation of welfare."


Don't bother putting it in quotes, I didn't say even an approximation of either of these things.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Don't bother putting it in quotes, I didn't say even an approximation of either of these things.


You implied the first one and effectively said precisely the second one.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> How does it feel to be a more racist than any Trump supporter?



Last I checked, it was all the leftist kiddos who think they know about everything out there rioting, looting, assulting, spewing racism
and demanding their entitlements.   Trump is cleaning house worldwide and will prevail.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> You implied the first one and effectively said precisely the second one.


You could've quoted me exactly if you had something to argue about my quote.  Instead you create an imaginary debate partner to avoid addressing me or my arguments directly.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Can anybody name Americas 1st President?


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> You could've quoted me exactly if you had something to argue about my quote.  Instead you create an imaginary debate partner to avoid addressing me or my arguments directly.


Hahaha. I jokingly paraphrased what you said to highlight how much of a racist you are. Don't try to wriggle out of it :^)


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Hahaha. I jokingly paraphrased what you said to highlight how much of a racist you are. Don't try to wriggle out of it :^)


"Jokingly paraphrased" = attributed me with more than one quote that I did not make.  I suppose this is the way things go in the anti-fact Trump bubble.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> "Jokingly paraphrased" = attributed me with more than one quote that I did not make.  I suppose this is the way things go in the anti-fact Trump bubble.


It was pretty clear that they weren't true quotes, but in-fact, joking paraphrases. Again, trying to avoid what you actually said. Very classy. 
Won't make you not a racist though.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> It was pretty clear that they weren't true quotes, but in-fact, joking paraphrases. Again, trying to avoid what you actually said. Very classy.
> Won't make you not a racist though.


See, I've never been one of these "political correctness" people, I couldn't care less if you call me a racist.  I grew up on George Carlin.  That doesn't mean you should just make shit up when you're running out of arguments.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Guys...  Quit being racist toward each other!  The true depth of racism is even alive and well in GBATemp! lol


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> "Jokingly paraphrased" = attributed me with more than one quote that I did not make.  I suppose this is the way things go in the anti-fact Trump bubble.



Or like when I post the actual "Russian" hacking report and you refuse to cite a single piece of evidence from it, because there are none.

Everyone can identify your text book socialism, SJW culture marxism just from the generic tumblr comments you make.

_*Betting*_ >>


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> See, I've never been one of these "political correctness" people, I couldn't care less if you call me a racist.  That doesn't mean you should just make shit up when you're running out of arguments.


Again, my argument was very clear, you're just refusing to combat it :^) 

You've proven yourself to be an intellectually dishonest child in this thread, and I have no inclination to talk further with you unless you're willing to participate in an honest discussion. 



Cylent1 said:


> Guys...  Quit being racist toward each other!  The true depth of racism is even alive and well in GBATemp!


I apologise


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Snip


Can you go one post without adding some picture that's completely irrelevant to the discussion, or do you just lack substance in any conversation that you try (and fail) to join?



Xiphiidae said:


> Again, my argument was very clear, you're just refusing to combat it :^)


Your argument made no fucking sense from the beginning.  Pointing out that white people are the biggest consumers of welfare is just a fact, no amount of crying "racism" is going to change that.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jan 3, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Everyone can identify your text book socialism, SJW culture marxism just from the generic tumblr comments you make.



But hey, at least the conversion of Libya from one of the most successful countries in Africa where the overwhelming majority lived a comfortable life into a near-literal hell on earth was 'efficient'.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

barronwaffles said:


> But hey, at least the conversion of Libya from one of the most successful countries in Africa where the overwhelming majority lived a comfortable life into a near-literal hell on earth was 'efficient'.


I'm glad you're pro-dictator and pro-murder of a country's citizens by its own leader.  I'm also glad that the majority of the world has a lot more sense than you.

But hey, there's always Syria if you want to move to a "paradise" like that.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I'm glad you're pro-dictator and pro-murder of a country's citizens by its own leader.  I'm also glad that the majority of the world has a lot more sense than you.



If that's what freedom and liberation looks like then I'm glad to be an outcast in a world where that makes 'sense'.


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Can you go one post without adding some picture that's completely irrelevant to the discussion, or do you just lack substance in any conversation that you try (and fail) to join?
> 
> 
> Your argument made no fucking sense from the beginning.  Pointing out that white people are the biggest consumers of welfare is just a fact, no amount of crying "racism" is going to change that.



Sure soon as you stop spouting hyperbolic hysterical bullshit, bad sterotypes about anyone right of communist and cite a single piece of evidence with a page number from the hacking report.






That or you have to drive your girlfriends boyfriend home and STFU


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Everything America has taught our children is a LIE!
1 instance: Google the name John Hanson.
Also according to the books, There was nothing in North America till Cristopher Columbus
founded it even though the informed ones know that it was Leif Erikson that founded North America.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

When did this thread Go from good old fashioned debate to toxic wasteland?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

barronwaffles said:


> If that's what freedom and liberation looks like then I'm glad to be an outcast in a world where that makes 'sense'.


Oh, so you prefer the version of freedom where your leader just murders you in cold blood.  I mean, I prefer to be alive and free, but to each their own...



jimbo13 said:


> Snip


So that's a no then, you are indeed useless to any given conversation.  Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

This thread racked up more post's tenfold quicker than Mocha CFW thread...


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> This thread racked up more post's tenfold quicker than Mocha CFW thread...


Word I was on page 12. Come back like 3 hours later and it almost doubled


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

The date under this video on youtube isn't just a coincedence...


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> So that's a no then, you are indeed useless to any given conversation.  Thanks for clearing that up.



So what page in the hack report cites the supporting evidence of Russian involvement?


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> So what page in the hack report cites the supporting evidence of Russian involvement?


He will be back later when Obama tells him...


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> So what page in the hack report cites the supporting evidence of Russian involvement?


There was a report in the security breach? Can you link it, I'd like to take a look.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Your argument made no fucking sense from the beginning. Pointing out that white people are the biggest consumers of welfare is just a fact, no amount of crying "racism" is going to change that.


Well, if that were true, it wouldn't be surprising considering that white people are the largest demographic in America. But my point doesn't really have much to do that whether or not more or less white people receive welfare than other groups. 

However, some statistics suggest white people aren't the largest demographic of welfare recipients, without even having to normalise by population.





(From here. Take it with a grain of salt, of course.)

I'll remind you of what you wrote:


> Hilarious when white people rail against other white people for being "moochers."


Why bring race into it? You're implying that white people shouldn't be critical of welfare just because a certain proportion of welfare recipients are white. I'm a supporter of a sensible and pragmatic welfare state that supports people without producing dependency and, most importantly, I do not care about the colour of people's skin when it comes to welfare.



Sketchy1 said:


> When did this thread Go from good old fashioned debate to toxic wasteland?


I wish I knew.



Xzi said:


> Oh, so you prefer the version of freedom where your leader just murders you in cold blood.  I mean, I prefer to be alive and free, but to each their own...


Ah, yes, I'm sure those ruled by Islamic State, 'Moderate' Rebels, or other Islamists are very free indeed. I hear they don't kill anyone at all!



> So that's a no then, you are indeed useless to any given conversation.   Thanks for clearing that up.


Are you capable of making one post without avoiding every single criticism and argument that's made against you?


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> View attachment 73557



Its Graphics and tables like this is what keeps us divided.  It's promoting racial division at the least!


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Its Graphics and tables like this is what keeps us divided.  It's promoting racial division at the least!


I actually have to question why the gov't promotes non-racial bias, yet keeps race demographics


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Its Graphics and tables like this is what keeps us divided.  It's promoting racial division at the least!


I agree, to a point. Understanding demographics is important, but trying to turn issues such as welfare, unemployment and socio-economics into ones all about race is harmful.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Why bring race into it? You're implying that white people shouldn't be critical of welfare just because a certain proportion of welfare recipients are white. I'm a supporter of a sensible and pragmatic welfare state that supports people without producing dependency and, most importantly, I do not care about the colour of people's skin when it comes to welfare.


Firstly, jimbo was the one to first imply race in regard to welfare.  Fox News, Breitbart, other right-wing media always try to make it an issue of color.  It's a tactic to keep the working class divided and distracted while the real upper-class criminals get away with everything up to and including murder.



Xiphiidae said:


> Ah, yes, I'm sure those ruled by Islamic State, 'Moderate' Rebels, or other Islamists are very free indeed. I hear they don't kill anyone at all!


We can only stop their leaders from killing them, we can't stop people from being their typical tribalistic selves and killing each other.  Installing a puppet government is not preferable, it just causes even more problems down the line.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Divide and Conquer!
John Hanson was Americas 1st President and he was black!


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Like I can understand age and maybe gender for demographics, but what difference does it make for where I come from if everyone who receives it is poor? No matter if your white, black, aisian, Japanese..... Poverty don't discriminate


----------



## jimbo13 (Jan 3, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> I actually have to question why the gov't promotes non-racial bias, yet keeps race demographics



Actually racial bias is an institutionalized law, it's called affirmative action and routinely used in appointments in every branch of Government including the supreme court, employment, college admissions and every single walk of American life.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

jimbo13 said:


> Actually racial bias is an institutionalized law, it's called affirmative action and routinely used in appointments in every branch of Government including the supreme court, employment, college admissions and every single walk of American life.


I'd believe it
But now this makes it seem kind of strange that this method of thinking,  put there by Americans, and yet, these same Americans complain about it later

No offence, I'm reffering to the institutionalized racism


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Firstly, jimbo was the one to first imply race in regard to welfare.  Fox News, Breitbart, other right-wing media always try to make it an issue of color.  It's a tactic to keep the working class divided and distracted while the real upper-class criminals get away with everything up to and including murder.


"Other people do it, so it's okay!"

I don't care about what the evil right-wing media says, I care about what you say. Don't deflect, don't avoid, actually tackle arguments that people make against you.



> Installing a puppet government is not preferable, it just causes even more problems down the line.


This is exactly my point? I don't want puppet governments, I don't want intervention. You're the one advocating regime change, remember?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Inauguration day playlist:





And I'll have to watch Idiocracy.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> right-wing media



Thats funny because they totally dissed trump and the whole right side, the whole year and made Shillary an angel!
You are dllusional buddy!


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Thats funny because they totally dissed trump the whole year and made Shillary an angel!
> You are dllusional buddy!


I agree. It's not about Left and Right that much anymore, it's about Globalism and Localism.



Xzi said:


> Inauguration day playlist:


Translation: I am a spoilt child.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 3, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Can anybody name Americas 1st President?


George Washington


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Idiocracy is a great movie and is a perfect example of where we are heading.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> I don't care about what the evil right-wing media says, I care about what you say. Don't deflect, don't avoid, actually tackle arguments that people make against you.


Then you could be a lot clearer about what your argument is.  As far as I could tell it was just, "don't bring race into this, that makes you a racist!"  There's no argument there, it's a dead-end.  I already stated that I don't care if you think I'm a racist.



Xiphiidae said:


> This is exactly my point? I don't want puppet governments, I don't want intervention. You're the one advocating regime change, remember?


We didn't install anyone in Libya though, we just got rid of the guy killing all the country's people.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> George Washington



John Hanson was.
Here was what they refuse to teach our children and why we live a lie:
http://www.constitution.org/hist/first8pres.htm


----------



## barronwaffles (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Translation: I am a spoilt child.



I would have gone with 'I spent too much time hanging around outside a Hot Topic in the early 2000's'.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Thats funny because they totally dissed trump and the whole right side, the whole year and made Shillary an angel!
> You are dllusional buddy!



Trump makes fun of one handicapped guy, he's  the worst guy who ever lived.

Hillary and the rest of the Clinton's steal millions of disaster relief funds from Haiti's earthquakes, Would make a great president.

WELL THEN


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Translation: I am a spoilt child.


I might be spoiled, but I'm definitely no child.  Sporting a full beard here.  Also not sure how you got that from RATM and Everlast.



barronwaffles said:


> I would have gone with 'I spent too much time hanging around outside a Hot Topic in the early 2000's'.


The first is a 90s song.  The second is a song from a 90s band.  You silly goose.  RATM is more relevant than ever today.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

#PIZZAGATE


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Then you could be a lot clearer about what your argument is.  As far as I could tell it was just, "don't bring race into this, that makes you a racist!"  There's no argument there, it's a dead-end.  I already stated that I don't care if you think I'm a racist.


Evidently you have poor reading comprehension. Stop deflecting! Stop avoiding! My argument was that not only did you make an unsubstantiated claim about demographics and welfare, it was about your judgement regarding white critics of welfare. It wasn't just about "bringing race into it", it was that I see you as a hypocrite who clearly doesn't care about working class people when they are white or disagree with your politics. I was giving you the opportunity to defend yourself.



> We didn't install anyone in Libya though, we just got rid of the guy killing all the country's people.


That's even more irresponsible. The resulting chaos is infinitely worse than what Gaddafi's regime was. I would rather there be no intervention whatsoever.



Xzi said:


> I might be spoiled, but I'm definitely no child.  Sporting a full beard here.  Also not sure how you got that from RATM and Everlast.


Because you need to grow up an understand that we live in a democracy. You had your chance, and things didn't work out how you would've wanted them to. And that's okay, democracy isn't going to go your way every time. So stop whining about Trump, and focus on what you'll be doing in four years, or on doing what you can now.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

"Cause this whole systems rigged, and we all know the riggers

For the last 8 years this country's been run by _______"

Finish the rhyme


----------



## barronwaffles (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The first is a 90s song.  The second is a song from a 90s band.  You silly goose.  RATM is more relevant than ever today.



They are the same manufactured-outrage poprock that they always were and I can't imagine anyone who listened to them as a 'rebellious' adolescent in the 90's still buys into it.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> My argument was that not only did you make an unsubstantiated claim about demographics and welfare, it was about your judgement regarding white critics of welfare. It wasn't just about "bringing race into it", it was that I see you as a hypocrite who clearly doesn't care about working class people when they are white or disagree with your politics. I was giving you the opportunity to defend yourself.


Okay that makes more sense.  I don't care if somebody has criticisms about welfare in general, it's just that welfare consumption tends to be attributed to people of color first and foremost in the mainstream consciousness.  Then those dividing lines get drawn and we aren't focusing on the true corporatist enemies causing the working class the most pain.



Xiphiidae said:


> That's even more irresponsible. The resulting chaos is infinitely worse than what Gaddafi's regime was. I would rather there be no intervention whatsoever.


We can agree to disagree there, people were being slaughtered by the thousands on a daily basis.  There wouldn't even be enough of a population left to constitute a country at this point if we hadn't intervened.  The entire country would just be Gaddafi, his servants, and his military.



Xiphiidae said:


> Because you need to grow up an understand that we live in a democracy.


There's that same language again.  Your argument means nothing if you can only frame it in terms of "winning" and "losing."  Even the people who voted for Trump are very likely to lose out overall within a few years of his presidency.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

> RATM is more relevant than ever today..


So is Megadeth!


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

barronwaffles said:


> They are the same manufactured-outrage poprock that they always were and I can't imagine anyone who listened to them as a 'rebellious' adolescent in the 90's still buys into it.


America is no stranger to violent revolution and violent events.  Those are precisely the topics that RATM covers most.  Call it faux outrage if you want, but eventually it all boils over to something more.  I'd think you'd know that by now living in Afghanistan.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Okay that makes more sense.  I don't care if somebody has criticisms about welfare in general, it's just that welfare consumption tends to be attributed to people of color first and foremost in the mainstream consciousness.  Then those dividing lines get drawn and we aren't focusing on the true corporatist enemies causing the working class the most pain.


Maybe, but from my (admittedly not American) perspective, I've seen almost as much talk about 'white trash' and even urban white welfare recipients in the US as I do on minority recipients. Certainly in Australia talk of "dole bludgers" is confined almost entirely to Anglo Australians, with some talk on recent migrants.

Welfare dependency is a serious issue (especially in Australia), and people need to be just as critical of progressive policy on welfare as they are on Neoliberal attitudes on welfare cuts, in my view.



> We can agree to disagree there


That we can.



> There's that same language again.  Your argument means nothing if you can only frame it in terms of "winning" and "losing."


My point is that it's not about "winning or losing" (in my view it's progressives that see it as this, as all they care about is upholding their ideology), it's about what's best for the country and the people in it. That's why people vote and campaign the way they do. The important point here is that people vote differently because they have different ideas of what is or isn't good for their country.



> Even the people who voted for Trump are very likely to lose out overall within a few years of his presidency.


Again, that's just your view. Many people disagree and have different predictions of the future of the US (and the world) over the next four years. Understand that you do not have future sight and are not omniscient, and that you may very well be wrong.


----------



## JeepX87 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> There's that same language again. Your argument means nothing if you can only frame it in terms of "winning" and "losing." Even the people who voted for Trump are very likely to lose out overall within a few years of his presidency.



Yes, we had majority liberal in the Congress for 2 years out of 8 years of Obama presidency, but lost in after 2010 midterm election, however there were some conservative democrats put brake on some legislation, so the Congress has been divided until 2015, but senators don't have 60 majority to break the filibuster. The nuclear option is rare and usually reserved for approve the court appointment.

Some republicans are moderate, especially in senate so Trump couldn't get everything that he wants, so it is notoriously difficult to work with the Congress. No wonder about the Congress traditionally get lowest approval rating since the president usually get higher approval rating (GWB and some presidents are exception).

My families told me that political system has been corrupted for many years, even my grandma told me about it, but there is only difference, it is getting more nastier now.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> That's why people vote and campaign the way they do. The important point here is that people vote differently because they have different ideas of what is or isn't good for their country.


The problem is that so many people are woefully uneducated and kept that way so that they're easy to manipulate.  What they see as good for the country is often obviously bad for the country.  Even bad for themselves.  Tribalism keeps them from breaking that cycle.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The problem is that so many people are woefully uneducated and kept that way so that they're easy to manipulate.  What they see as good for the country is often obviously bad for the country.


Again, good and bad are subjective. 

Also, nice to see some of that elitism again. Some people just didn't have the upbringing and circumstances of birth to be as wonderfully educated as you apparently are.


----------



## GuyInDogSuit (Jan 3, 2017)

Why are we even getting political on a gamer site?


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

GuyInDogSuit said:


> Why are we even getting political on a gamer site?


For the same reason that we have off-topic chat of any kind.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> Also, nice to see some of that elitism again. Some people just didn't have the upbringing and circumstances of birth to be as wonderfully educated as you apparently are.


That's exactly what I'm saying, the vast majority are kept dumb, not just a few.  This has benefited the Republican party and corporations more than anybody else.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 3, 2017)

Boy, oh boy - inauguration day can't come soon enough. Great podcast, by the way.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> inauguration day can't come soon enough


Can't get enough of that Scott Baio star power, eh?  I wonder if the song Trump chooses to play as he steps in will cut out halfway through due to copyright claim.


----------



## coinblock (Jan 3, 2017)

GuyInDogSuit said:


> Why are we even getting political on a gamer site?



'Cause it looks like OP has an agenda to push and wants to call out the doubters.


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

coinblock said:


> 'Cause it looks like OP has an agenda to push and wants to call out the doubters.



So anyone who wishes to engage in political discourse has an agenda to push?


----------



## Jonna (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> For the same reason that we have off-topic chat of any kind.


The proper question is, why is it on the front page?


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

coinblock said:


> Yeah, an admin beginning a post on a gaming site by calling disagreement with their political opinion/thread title "pure bullshit" sure is some great discourse. Would wade in this swamp again, A+++ post



I didn't read through all 24 pages of posts and psychoanalyze every participant. Clearly, they have their opinion but that doesn't mean they have an agenda.


----------



## coinblock (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> I didn't read through all 24 pages of posts and psychoanalyze every participant. Clearly, they have their opinion but that doesn't mean they have an agenda.



Yeah except OP literally began the discussion from a position of authority while stating that everyone who disagrees with him is *wrong.*


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

Jonna said:


> The proper question is, why is it on the front page?


Topic was started by an Admin, I suppose.


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Jan 3, 2017)

I honestly believe tbey did hack the polls. No way someone like trump could have became president, besides weren't they the ones who hacked S0ny ps3 back in 2011.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> I honestly believe tbey did hack the polls. No way someone like trump could have became president, besides weren't they the ones who hacked S0ny ps3 back in 2011.


Absolutely anything can be hacked, it's simply about having (or finding) the expertise.  Russia or China (or S Korea) would be the most likely perpetrators based simply on internet traffic.  With Russia the assumption is usually that Putin is going to be involved somehow, with China it's probably some guy trying to steal your payment details and all your accounts.  You only hack the DNC/RNC with one motive, and it's not to make money, it's to influence an election.

That said, the bigger influence on the election was probably Comey in violation of the Hatch Act.  Not that it couldn't all be connected.  Comey is said to have broken the silence in response to the joint intelligence statement that Russia was involving themselves in the election (BEFORE the election).


----------



## Costello (Jan 3, 2017)

coinblock said:


> 'Cause it looks like OP has an agenda to push and wants to call out the doubters.


ahhh yes the conspiracy theories everywhere. What am I, according to your theory, a right wing jew serving nazi propaganda? a chinese spy brainwashed by the KGB? that's just so much fun 

I shouldn't have to justify what I want to post on my home page. This is a critical subject to everyone and the number of views and replies and votes is proving me right. As I have said before, if this doesn't interest you, feel free to part ways. Skip this thread, leave the site, be my guest. The only interest I have is that of my website.

I do have political views myself, which I have stated numerous times in the past, I have nothing to hide whatsoever. I am a french guy who supports Bernie and I fight everything Trump stands for (climate change denial, creationism, racism, bigotry, homophobia, tax evasion, etc) but I firmly believe in democracy. And if there is one thing I will always fight for - it's the truth. The US have already lied to us in the past, most recently with Irak, so it is legitimate to have doubts when bold claims are made without evidence.

But you will notice that I have never used the site and will never use it to channel my personal political beliefs. Have you ever seen a "go bernie" thread on the home page? I could have done so during the primaries. But that's not what this website is for. This thread is merely a poll that aims to find out whether people really believe the media and the government with this particular issue. We aren't making a statement, we're asking a question. If you've read the previous posts in this thread I have repeatedly asked to see evidence (not asking anyone to produce any evidence, I was just asking if we may have overlooked a particular detail, a particular fact, or something?). And even then as I stated in my first post, while I personally remain skeptical, I still believe it's possible they may be telling the truth because they have evidence they are forced to withhold from the public for various reasons.

Also, it seems to bother you that I called the vermont power grid hack story "pure bullshit". Why not call it the way it is? It is pure bullshit - and that's not an opinion, that's factual. Every other site has called that story "fake news" and the original article was retracted because it was indeed fake news. What more do you need?


----------



## Costello (Jan 3, 2017)

Jonna said:


> The proper question is, why is it on the front page?


the fact that this thread has had 470+ replies and almost 9000 views in less than 24 hours answers that.
expect to see more of those in the future... it's simple - we post what we believe people will be interested in discussing.


I would also like to state that I am proud to see how this thread has been kept civil (for the most part) and that we've seen a lot of intelligent responses - yes I have read all 24 pages. This goes to show once more that GBAtemp isn't just a bunch of kids pirating games as I have heard say so often. This place is full of bright individuals, young and old, and time will continue to prove it.


----------



## Chary (Jan 3, 2017)

Here's Assange on record saying that *none* of the DNC information Wikileaks had was from Russians. Interesting.


----------



## Costello (Jan 3, 2017)

Chary said:


> Here's Assange on record saying that *none* of the DNC information Wikileaks had was from Russians. Interesting.



he had already said it during a phone interview with the same guy a couple of weeks ago (which I listened to)

glad there is now another video interview
strangely the facebook wikileaks page hasn't said anything about it, they are normally very prompt to post those things


----------



## Jonna (Jan 3, 2017)

Costello said:


> the fact that this thread has had 470+ replies and almost 9000 views in less than 24 hours answers that.
> expect to see more of those in the future... it's simple - we post what we believe people will be interested in discussing.
> 
> 
> I would also like to state that I am proud to see how this thread has been kept civil (for the most part) and that we've seen a lot of intelligent responses - yes I have read all 24 pages. This goes to show once more that GBAtemp isn't just a bunch of kids pirating games as I have heard say so often. This place is full of bright individuals, young and old, and time will continue to prove it.


I will say I'm both surprised and happy that this has reached 24 pages without devolving into a ridiculous chaotic mess of insults flying into the air and landing on random posters. I agree with your assertion that this is great to see in the member-base, way to go, every one!

Having this on the front page is disappointing to me. It is your website, and you are completely free to do what you want, and I can go take a flying leap off a cliff-side with no one on here to know or care in the slightest. The issue is that you also have a certain goal to keep to in maintaining a website, if you'd like the website to continue as it should, and your members that you rely on to keep the website afloat have their expectations when they visit their website - or else you run risk of gaining a negative reputation, be that mild or severe. Personally, this isn't something I think is that much of a problem if it's only once in a very long time, but your posts you've made have said to expect more of these. I believe that many of us come to this website for the sake of what the website is, and it's a break from the constant nagging and attention provided by the media and every other information outlet thrown in your face. It feels like that annoying ad about x celebrity news or y political article or z health-issue-propaganda, but the owner of the site is actually recommending it. 

Again, your website, your way of running it any way you please. But please don't start discounting and throwing away some of us legitimate users who are here for the purpose of what your website is advertised for. As with respect to any administrator of any forum, if this is something you'd prefer to speak privately, I have no issue with speaking over PM's.


----------



## coinblock (Jan 3, 2017)

Costello said:


> ahhh yes the conspiracy theories everywhere. What am I, according to your theory, a right wing jew serving nazi propaganda? a chinese spy brainwashed by the KGB? that's just so much fun



What you are is triggered by my post, it appears- as you've deleted the one you're replying to _and _gave me a warning for expressing such an offensive opinion. It looks like you need a safe space to beat up on that straw man you've got there.



Costello said:


> "But you will notice that I have never used the site and will never use it to channel my personal political beliefs" "We aren't making a statement, we're asking a question."



This thread is doing both. You're trying to equate one crappy Washington Post story about the Vermont power grid to the entire issue of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, in a front page post on a _gaming website, _while taking shots at those who disagree with you from your position of authority as admin.



Costello said:


> If you've read the previous posts in this thread I have repeatedly asked to see evidence (not asking anyone to produce any evidence, I was just asking if we may have overlooked a particular detail, a particular fact, or something?).



There's ample evidence and agreement from U.S. and independent security experts that Russian shenanigans played a significant role in influencing the result of the election, one much more subtle than just blatantly hacking the voting machines (which no credible state or organization is accusing them of). But you're starting off this "discussion" by trying to dismiss _any _criticisms of Trump surrounding his many Russian connections, the guy who asked Russia to interfere in the election to help him, on national TV. So, will any amount of evidence that users post here even matter?

You seem to have your mind made up already, singing the praises of Greenwald, Assange, and WikiLeaks, all of whom, but especially the last two are some of the largest Russia apologists around... Or at least WikiLeaks has been since 2010, after failing to deliver on a promise on Russian leaks. They've also noticeably refused to release any "leaks" on Trump, and have no problems doctoring their document dumps to protect Russia's interests. Hmmm... I wonder who's feeding them hacked docs from the DNC?

You're even using RT as a source- which is literally the definition of state sponsored propaganda, written by Kremlin staff for God's sake! Incidentally, Assange also has a show there, and Greenwald is a regular guest. They criticize one government and embrace another which is arguably far worse.

The most confusing thing I've seen this entire election is gymnastics from so many folks who claim as you do, to stand for progressive causes, jumping at the chance to attack "establishment" U.S. politicians, while ignoring or trying to gloss over the imperialistic ambitions of an authoritarian dictatorship like Russia. Their "dezinformatsiya" spread through the internet is a real danger to democracy all over the world and should not be written off as "Democrats are just mad because they lost".

I hope you don't just delete this.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jan 3, 2017)

coinblock said:


> There's ample evidence and agreement from U.S. and independent security experts that Russian shenanigans played a significant role in influencing the result of the election


Perhaps, but there's no hard publicly verifiable evidence that the Russian state itself played a direct role in influencing the result of the election. We only have hearsay, and I would rather not put blind trust in US Intelligence agencies. Regardless, your entire point rests on "hacking Podesta = hacking election". Why is "influencing" the election by revealing critical information so bad? Would you rather people not make make judgements based on the fact that the DNC rigged the primaries against Sanders? At any rate, information was revealed to people, and people made up their own minds based on the information that was presented to them.



> You seem to have your mind made up already, singing the praises of Greenwald, Assange, and WikiLeaks, all of whom, but especially the last two are some of the largest Russia apologists around... Or at least WikiLeaks has been since 2010, after failing to deliver on a promise on Russian leaks.


Again, perhaps, but at the end of the day, why is this important? All of the information released by Wikileaks is true; all they are guilty of is revealing information to the public. If transparency and exposing corruption is so horrible to you, then I don't know what to tell you.



> Incidentally, Assange also has a show there, and Greenwald is a regular guest. They criticize one government and embrace another which is arguably far worse.


When the US is vying for your head, not many places other than Russia would be willing to allow you to have a show there, I imagine.



> The most confusing thing I've seen this entire election is gymnastics from so many folks who claim as you do, to stand for progressive causes, jumping at the chance to attack "establishment" U.S. politicians, while ignoring or trying to gloss over the imperialistic ambitions of an authoritarian dictatorship like Russia. Their "dezinformatsiya" spread through the internet is a real danger to democracy all over the world


Because the US doesn't have any imperialistic ambitions right? US interventionism and the corruption of the DNC aren't threats to democracy, right?

Again, this is same old "The Russians, the Russians!" Not everyone who is critical of Clinton and the DNC, or supports Wikileaks, or supports Trump, is pro-Russia or pro-Putin.


----------



## Costello (Jan 3, 2017)

coinblock said:


> What you are is triggered by my post, it appears- as you've deleted the one you're replying to _and _gave me a warning for expressing such an offensive opinion. It looks like you need a safe space to beat up on that straw man you've got there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Finally, finally I got an intelligent response out of you... I just wish it weren't so violent and aggressive. And don't take the piss when a mod removes a post of yours, that's how it works here. You posted something insulting that got removed; that is all there is to it.

I would like to invite you to read my posts. What I have been saying several times already is that the evidence I have personally read from the mainstream media is too thin right now (almost non existent) and considering recent history, it is natural to expect stronger evidence to substantiate bold claims. Is there any shame in that? Is it a crime to question?

Incidentally, the link you posted above from CrowdStrike is exactly what I have been begging for all along, so I have to thank you for that  It is the first technical article that I read that actually means something to me and could begin to shift my personal opinion (and I am not saying my opinion matters to anyone else but me). Sadly while the article is quite convincing technically, it doesn't offer any evidence as to a connection between these russian hacking groups and the russian government. I am not saying it isn't possible or that it isn't likely - it sounds likely in fact - just that I haven't personally seen enough, and not for lack of searching. And the fact that Assange is saying "our source isnt russia" doesn't mean much to me, it could have been a third party controlled by Russia without Assange knowing.

To conclude, you seem to think I have made up my mind but that is not the case in fact. You may have noticed that I voted for the "there's a slight chance it might be true" option and like I said I needed to know more. I am more than happy about how this thread turned out. Additional information was brought to light, debates stayed civil, let's keep it open for a little while longer.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Jan 3, 2017)

Aren't all elections rigged?


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 3, 2017)

https://sharylattkisson.com/eight-facts-on-the-russian-hacks/


----------



## coinblock (Jan 3, 2017)

Xiphiidae said:


> All of the information released by Wikileaks is true; all they are guilty of is revealing information to the public. If transparency and exposing corruption is so horrible to you, then I don't know what to tell you.



No, it's not. WikiLeaks is very picky when it comes to who they choose to criticize. The release that made a name for them, "collateral murder", was heavily edited from the original for shock value. Also, as I already pointed out, they have a history of editing their releases to protect Russia, refusing to criticize Russia or Putin at all, while publicly praising both of them with their twitter account (which also now re-tweets Alex Jones posts). U.S. intelligence services and several private experts agree unanimously that the DNC was hacked by groups working on behalf of Russian state services. The information that was stolen was released at the most damaging opportunities by WikiLeaks with the express goal of smearing the political opponent of a man with major personal financial and political ties to Russian elites.



Xiphiidae said:


> Would you rather people not make make judgements based on the fact that the DNC rigged the primaries against Sanders?



Please provide a link to the email that proves this.

WikiLeaks claim to be for "transparency and exposing corruption" but are incredibly selective as to who they target, and when their information is made public to maximize damage to them. Isn't it curious how they seemingly have nothing to expose on the guy who brags about not paying taxes and committing crimes?



Xiphiidae said:


> Because the US doesn't have any imperialistic ambitions right?



Can you not be critical of one without ignoring the other? No one is unbiased, but what WikiLeaks is choosing to omit or defend is equally important.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jan 3, 2017)

After glossing over some of the posts here, I'd like to say


JoostinOnline said:


> Shit's about to hit the fan


Called it.


----------



## Viri (Jan 3, 2017)

Did they ever find out how the DNC got hacked? 

I know Podesta got hacked, because he's a fucking idiot when it comes to tech, and checked his spam email section which contained a phishing site. I sometimes find those links in my email, and wonder who would be dumb enough to fall for them, and then I remember, lol...


----------



## SRKTiberious (Jan 3, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> [snip]
> What actually happened this election is a hard 180 degree turn. With groups like BLM around causing civil unrest by, basically, enacting acts of terror on American soil that remain unaddressed and a politically correct gestapo doing whatever it can to stifle political dissent by branding people as racists, sexists, misogynists and every other -ist in the book, or the now more popular umbrella term "alt-right" the establishment has alienated its core voting base. People are sick of being called names for merely associating with the right-wing, and I even know a couple of cases of Democrats who voted Trump specifically because the previous government has made their everyday life markedly worse. People want actual change, not just progressive ideas on a paper plate because you can't eat those. I'll admit that Clinton won the popular vote, however one look at the map will tell you exactly why the institution or the electoral college exists and why their decision was to go with Trump. The little slice of America between the two coasts can't be ruled by the handful of densely populated states on each coast - those states are nothing alike. The majority of states voted Trump, and it is only fair that he became president.



As an American who watched this entire election cycle (and voted Trump in the general), what's been said here is 100% truth. I even had the feeling that Trump was going to steamroll the primaries before he even got popular. For me, it was only a question of who he faced, Hillary or Bernie. If he went against Bernie, he'd lose, but I knew he'd win against Hillary.

Over here, in what's generally termed 'flyover country' (one of the states in that giant swath of red in the general election results map), there's real anger over the last 8 years under Obama. Health insurance got more expensive _and_ worse at the same time thanks to ACA, jobs didn't return in the numbers they needed to, and we added more than another $9,000,000,000,000 to the national debt. Beyond that, he reneged on his promises to close Guantanamo Bay, end our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably spent the most time on the golf course than any other President in history. In short, we got more of the same.

At the same time, SJWs and black lies matter, clearly under the repressive left's banner, gaining prominence and playing the already-frayed race card to loose fibers just turned more and more people off the left.

So when Trump comes in, despised _equally_ by democrats _and_ republicans, and telling the 'political correctness' crybullies in so many words to take a long walk off a short pier, anyone watching with half a brain cell could see how he'd gain a 'yuuuuuge' following (no, I'm not sorry for that either ).

I do have to give the RNC credit, though, as despite the deals made between the other two front-runners, when it was clear that Trump would win the primary, they did their duty and nominated him for the General. Conversely, the Democrat primary should serve as a giant wake-up call to see just how little they think of their voters, and to show that the people who consider themselves Democrats in this country need to get real grassroots movement going to reform the DNC's primary process to prevent this kind of anointing from on high from happening again (Hint: it happened in 2004 when Obama 'won' over Hillary, but no real fuss was made over it, as it was considered 'historic' at the time).



Foxi4 said:


> If you think that the Wikileaks unfairly leaked information that either changed people's mind on faint pretenses or simply convinced them not to vote, do note that the biased media had their own campaign against the other candidate. This election was very much the establishment versus the anti-establishment, and the latter won.
> The premise is that by hacking DNC servers and releasing "misinformation" through Wikileaks they've skewed public opinion against Hillary, costing her the election. Of course that premise is stupid, but that's the idea.



The fact that all the 'alphabet soup' news outlets (as well as 'alternative' sources like the young turds) were in shock as states fell to Trump shows just how far in the tank they were for Hillary and the DNC. These people waltzed into the studio with the idea that Hillary was going to win, and all they had to do was kick back and relay the 'good news' as it came in. To me, it was almost cathartic watching these anchors squirm as reality hit them like a ton of bricks.

To borrow an analogy, it was as though the DNC and the left-leaning media shoved all-in and smiled when Trump called, only to see Trump's AA vs. their KK when the first states reported in, and as more cards and states fell, it became clear that despite their posturing, all their speech-play, every last shred of hollywooding was useless against the stone-cold nuts.

In fact, the network I was viewing (CBS) took more than _40 minutes_ to report from the Associated Press that the last state (Michigan) needed to put Trump over the top had been called. It was as though they refused to face reality until the very bitter end, and then, as the young turds happily show us, the tantrum began in earnest. They continued to triple and quadruple down on the same rhetoric that pushed people further and further away from Hillary and wear their bias proudly.


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> Aren't all elections rigged?



Depends on what you mean by "rigged." If you are referring to elections in the United States and the fact that not every vote carries the same weight, then yes: they are rigged. The electoral college has some merit in that it is meant to protect the minority but it doesn't seem right that certain states offer more "voting power" than others because of the ratio of voters to electors. Additionally, the "winner take all" system seems to contradict the notion that the electoral college is protecting the minority. Lastly, there is state government's manipulation of the voting system. North Carolina is an excellent example of just how much gerrymandering a state can get away with.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

SRKTiberious said:


> So when Trump comes in, despised _equally_ by democrats _and_ republicans


That's the fantasy, right?  It's too bad that in reality, he sold out entirely to the republican establishment within a matter of minutes after being elected.  Trump doesn't even take any intelligence briefings now, they all go to Mike Pence on a weekly basis.


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

SRKTiberious said:


> At the same time, SJWs and black lies matter, clearly under the repressive left's banner, gaining prominence and playing the already-frayed race card to loose fibers just turned more and more people off the left.



Sounds like someone is in denial about racism.



SRKTiberious said:


> (Hint: it happened in 2004 when Obama 'won' over Hillary, but no real fuss was made over it, as it was considered 'historic' at the time).



Hint: It would have been historic had Hillary 'won' over Obama.



SRKTiberious said:


> Health insurance got more expensive _and_ worse at the same time thanks to ACA, jobs didn't return in the numbers they needed to, and we added more than another $9,000,000,000,000 to the national debt. Beyond that, he reneged on his promises to close Guantanamo Bay, end our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably spent the most time on the golf course than any other President in history. In short, we got more of the same.



His administration's health insurance reform was gutted. Many of the key changes that were made will actually be kept under Trump which means Trump actually reneged on his campaign promise to completely replace the ACA. The jobless rate has dropped below the historic median so I'm not sure what "where it needs to be" means. Perhaps if previous administrations hadn't crashed the economy they would be where you deem "they need to be." Given the hand they were dealt, Obama's administration has done miraculous things especially considering the unwillingness of the right to reach across the aisle and compromise to get anything done.

Just as a general observation: it sounds as if you are lumping everyone into two categories. Not everyone is far-left or far-right. Many moderate Democrats were pissed that Bernie was shut out by the DNC. However, when it comes to priorities I just don't understand how a Republican or a Democrat can justify voting against corruption in favor of corruption *in addition to *narcissism, entitlement, chest-banging, misogyny, and rudeness.


----------



## MionissNio (Jan 3, 2017)

Trump may not be very liked and stuff but if he won the election he deserved it without a doubt and we cannot say no less I don't think Russia hacked the election.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

MionissNio said:


> Trump may not be very liked and stuff but if he won the election he deserved it without a doubt and we cannot say no less I don't think Russia hacked the election.


Ofc they didn't, some people just can't take a loss. America would much rather admit voting security was shit rather then trump won fair and square.
And to further add on, technically the "evidence" of these claims dosent actually say anything, but rather only _suggest _that Russia may have done something. But you know how it goes, mainstream media sees a chance to sensationalize a HUGE headline, and get to try and hate on trump, to boot!


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

MionissNio said:


> Trump may not be very liked and stuff but if he won the election he deserved it without a doubt



This is your opinion. I happen to think that people who do not play by the rules should not be given such immense responsibility.


----------



## Juiss (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> This is your opinion. I happen to think that *people who do not play by the rules* should not be given such immense responsibility.


Are you saying Trump didn't play by the rules?


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

Juiss said:


> Are you saying Trump didn't play by the rules?



When you don't pay your taxes you are not playing by the rules.


----------



## SRKTiberious (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> Depends on what you mean by "rigged." If you are referring to elections in the United States and the fact that not every vote carries the same weight, then yes: they are rigged. The electoral college has some merit in that it is meant to protect the minority but it doesn't seem right that certain states offer more "voting power" than others because of the ratio of voters to electors. Additionally, the "winner take all" system seems to contradict the notion that the electoral college is protecting the minority. Lastly, there is state government's manipulation of the voting system. North Carolina is an excellent example of just how much gerrymandering a state can get away with.



I'll certainly agree that the Electoral College as implemented by 48 of the states is flawed, as winner-take-all does disenfranchise voters, but the solution is amendment, not abolition.

If I had to suggest an alternative system, I would use a modification of the model used by Maine and Nebraska. In those states currently, the overall winner receives 2 EC votes, and the rest are on a congressional district basis.

It's clear, though, that going by district is also flawed, so I'd use this modified version:



> For states > 4 EC votes:
> - Each state's overall winner receives 2 EC voters.
> - All other votes for each state are apportioned based on percentage of votes cast for each candidate, rounded towards overall winner.
> 
> ...



The idea here is to balance the power of individual voters with the power of the state as a whole, and essentially put every state into play. Unfortunately for Hillary supporters, this method would still have given Trump the EC, but not by quite so overwhelming a margin, as any gains picked up by one side in states that went the other way in the WTA format would be erased by losses in states won via WTA.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> When you don't pay your taxes you are not playing by the rules.


Well to be fair, not releasing tax returns doesn't nessicerilly mean not paying taxes, just means he doesn't feel like sharing it :/


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

SRKTiberious said:


> If I had to suggest an alternative system, I would use a modification of the model used by Maine and Nebraska. In those states currently, the overall winner receives 2 EC votes, and the rest are on a congressional district basis.



I agree. This seems like a much more reasonable system.


----------



## Juiss (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> When you don't pay your taxes you are not playing by the rules.


Exploiting a loophole =/= not playing by the rules. Trump *is* playing by the rules, he's even abusing them.


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> Well to be fair, not releasing tax returns doesn't nessicerilly mean not paying taxes, just means he doesn't feel like sharing it :/



I'll say the same thing that the right says about Hillary's private server: there's only one reason to have a private server and that is to hide something you've done wrong. There is a reason he doesn't feel like sharing.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> I'll say the same thing that the right says about Hillary's private server: there's only one reason to have a private server and that is to hide something you've done wrong. There is a reason he doesn't feel like sharing.


You're right, but at the end of the day,
Both candidates had something to hide, so because of the lack of "none of the above" options of voting,  america is forced to either not vote or choose whoever seems less shitty. Guess in this case it happens to be trump


----------



## SRKTiberious (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> I agree. This seems like a much more reasonable system.


Except I clearly did _not_ advocate going by congressional district, as that opens the door for gerrymandering and abuse of even that alternative system.

My proposed alternative is based on popular vote on a state-by-state basis regardless of districts. It takes gerrymandering out of the picture entirely.


----------



## Juiss (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> I'll say the same thing that the right says about Hillary's private server: there's only one reason to have a private server and that is to hide something you've done wrong. There is a reason he doesn't feel like sharing.


Oh so you're actually complaining about his lack of transparency? Trump doesn't owe you his tax returns, he's entitled to his privacy.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Now that I think about it , everyone had something to hide

Trumps tax returns
Hillary's emails
Obamas birth certificate (at first)
Hmmm fishy


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

Juiss said:


> Exploiting a loophole =/= not playing by the rules. Trump *is* playing by the rules, he's even abusing them.



Exploit literally means to "benefit unfairly from". So yes, you're right: he may be playing by the rules but that doesn't mean it's right or fair. The alternative is that he is doing more than exploiting a loophole. If he was able to share his taxes and cite the loopholes he was able to use to get around paying the "fair share" it would have been gold for his campaign. They could have pointed out exactly what they aim to fix. If this is the case it is clear he does not intend on closing the loop holes and making good on his campaign promises. Either way, it's shady as fuck. For that reason, in my opinion at least, he does not deserve the heavy responsibility that the title of POTUS bears.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SRKTiberious said:


> Except I clearly did _not_ advocate going by congressional district, as that opens the door for gerrymandering and abuse of even that alternative system.
> 
> My proposed alternative is based on popular vote on a state-by-state basis regardless of districts. It takes gerrymandering out of the picture entirely.



Excuse me, I misquoted. It's late here and I'm clearly tired.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> Exploit literally means to "benefit unfairly from". So yes, you're right: he may be playing by the rules but that doesn't mean it's right or fair. The alternative is that he is doing more than exploiting a loophole. If he was able to share his taxes and cite the loopholes he was able to use to get around paying the "fair share" it would have been gold for his campaign. They could have pointed out exactly what they aim to fix. If this is the case it is clear he does not intend on closing the loop holes and making good on his campaign promises. Either way, it's shady as fuck. For that reason, in my opinion at least, he does not deserve the heavy responsibility that the title of POTUS bears.


True, but now he has that presidential immunity right?
So even if he's caught, he can't get stung.
Same if Hillary were to win


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

Juiss said:


> Oh so you're actually complaining about his lack of transparency? Trump doesn't owe you his tax returns, he's entitled to his privacy.



No, he is not. He gave that up the second he decided to run for the most powerful office on the planet. I suppose you think he's entitled to keep his businesses (or even let his children run them) while he is president?


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> No, he is not. He gave that up the second he decided to run for the most powerful office on the planet. I suppose you think he's entitled to keep his businesses (or even let his children run them) while he is president?


Technically speaking, they are his businesses, so he actually is entitled to keep them if he wants.
But ofc, one will fail unless he can somehow manage both, which I highly doubt


----------



## Juiss (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> No, he is not. He gave that up the second he decided to run for the most powerful office on the planet. I suppose you think he's entitled to keep his businesses (or even let his children run them) while he is president?


His personal finances have nothing to do with being POTUS, so yes he is. He's also entitled to keeping his businesses if he chooses to do so, doesn't make it a good idea but that's beside the point.


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> Technically speaking, they are his businesses, so he actually is entitled to keep them if he wants.
> But ofc, one will fail unless he can somehow manage both, which I highly doubt



That's not how it works. He would then have the ability to create legislation for the sole purpose of his own financial benefit. It's a massive conflict of interest. Even if his children run the businesses it runs the risk of becoming nepotism.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Juiss said:


> His personal finances have nothing to do with being POTUS, so yes he is. He's also entitled to keeping his businesses if he chooses to do so, doesn't make it a good idea but that's beside the point.



See above: his personal finances have the potential to get mingled in with his job as POTUS.


----------



## Juiss (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> That's not how it works. *He would then have the ability to create legislation* for the sole purpose of his own financial benefit. It's a massive conflict of interest. Even if his children run the businesses it runs the risk of becoming nepotism.


Please, go on.


----------



## solarsaturn9 (Jan 3, 2017)

Juiss said:


> Please, go on.



I don't know what more you want. That's the problem. You can't have someone who trades military alliance or political capitol for favors that financially benefit the president.


----------



## Ryu Kenshin (Jan 3, 2017)

Russian hackers use RobCo equipment and guess password


----------



## kumikochan (Jan 3, 2017)

Is this tread still going on lol. Get over it, the US isn't innocent by any means. They hacked everybody's Phone and even officials and it's people from allied countries such as France, Germany, Belgium, UK, Spain, well the entire of Europe. They're even forcing Belgium to get rid of their F16 and buy F35's wich cost around 5 billion euro and yearly costs 250 million and only for those couple of planes just because you can arm them with Nukes wich we have here stationed by the states for a means to defend against Russia. That's all been while Obama was president. He and the Clintons have been searching more and more ways of aggravating the Russians. In my eyes forcing European countries to buy F35's with the sole purpose of firing Nukes is an act of war. But ey, it's Always when the states does something it's alright but when somebody else does something it has to be looked at with a magnifying glass. GET OVER IT !!! And another thing i keep seeing here brought up py people is that the US has the most powerful office in the world. Nope they don't ! They're a lot of richer countries with less debt and an infastructure way ahead of the US in almost all ways. Europe in it's whole and it's countries would already be a couple.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 3, 2017)

@Costello Wow I guess news video with the truth coming out of the horses mouth is just not evidence enough for you?
I suppose it was fake?

It's a PROVEN FACT that Obama is a Muslim and also that his Birth Certificate is fake.
So why erase my post?

Better yet, I am offended!  Now you understand?


----------



## Sketchy1 (Jan 3, 2017)

solarsaturn9 said:


> That's not how it works. He would then have the ability to create legislation for the sole purpose of his own financial benefit. It's a massive conflict of interest. Even if his children run the businesses it runs the risk of becoming nepotism.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Even if he has the ability to, the thing is, You can't just strip him of his ownership simply just because. He is still just like any other citizen in terms of certain rights. A limited right to privacy, a right to keep your property, and the right to say what he wants :/

And besides, signing such legislation wouldn't be illegal, as it would affect other businesses too. As long as he doesn't abuse said legislation, no one else in the govt can actually do anything about it

And it wouldn't exactly become a nepotism because he can't appoint anyone of his friends or family to the cabinet, as that's illegal, and is already banned


----------



## weegee721 (Jan 3, 2017)

John Podesta's email password was [email protected] #pizzagate

DNC emails were leaked by Seth Rich

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=john+podesta's+email+password

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-leaked-dnc-emails-liberal-media-wont-report/
And you can't hack paper ballots/electors

Still need to find more reliable sauce on the power grid thing, I haven't really been following it closely cause of how ridiculous it is, but from what I observed it's more of a clickbait topic.


----------



## B9_Malpractice (Jan 3, 2017)

I would have kind of thought that both sides would start calling each other out for stuff like this.

Not a fan of politics. Why is this on the front page?


----------



## weegee721 (Jan 3, 2017)

Yea I agree, this is not the place for political discussion.
I guess the admin/OP just wanted to gauge opinion on the site.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jan 3, 2017)

B9_Malpractice said:


> Not a fan of politics. Why is this on the front page?


This is kind of a hacking forum, so...


----------



## weegee721 (Jan 3, 2017)

Lol yea, I was about to say, this is a place where we can get the 1337 ninty hax from the talented haxxors on the site, not a place for politics cause what that does is divide the site, and that's the last thing we want.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Sketchy1 said:


> True, but now he has that presidential immunity right?
> So even if he's caught, he can't get stung.
> Same if Hillary were to win


Congress can impeach a president, if they've broken the law


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 3, 2017)

chrisrlink said:


> and because I'm a Muslim convert I am seriously under their microscope i bet


Scary, isn't it? Reminds one of North Korea. You can't even insist on a trial, as far as I know.
Fun fact: It's possible to go to jail in Germany for not paying the obligatory propaganda TV fee of 17,50 EUR per month. It's illegal but neither courts nor politicians do anything against it as it's a huge money generator (8 billion per year) and it gives politicians a platform.

BTW I'm interested to know how you became a Muslim. I can't figure out how to send a PM though.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 3, 2017)

anyway, my heart goes out to the unfortunate people that will have to die once the ACA gets rewritten.


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Scary, isn't it? Reminds one of North Korea. You can't even insist on a trial, as far as I know.
> Fun fact: It's possible to go to jail in Germany for not paying the obligatory propaganda TV fee of 17,50 EUR per month. It's illegal but neither courts nor politicians do anything against it as it's a huge money generator (8 billion per year) and it gives politicians a platform.
> 
> BTW I'm interested to know how you became a Muslim. I can't figure out how to send a PM though.


lies, thats a lie and you know you're telling a lie.

the one woman out of the thousands of people who intentionally don't pay that money went into Beugehaft (coercive detention). not for not paying the broadcasting fee, but because somewhere along the way, she was supposed to present her financial situation and wouldn't. the state asked her to lay open her finances and it was her duty as citizen to do just that. but she wouldn't, so the state invoked coercive detention until she does. at any point during that detention, she only had to lay open her finances, as any other citizen would have to in that situation, and she would have been released from coercive detention instantly, just like any other citizen in coercive detention, without paying the broadcast fee still, mind you.


the fee is also not illegal. i'm moderately sure our highest courts have made that clear a bunch of times so far. because no matter how similar to a tax it is, it isn't a tax. the revenue isn't free to be used in times of financial need by the state. so it's not a hidden tax and not illegal.

as for bcoming a muslim, you convert, just like when you become a jew or a buddhist or a christian. you contact the local representatives, ask how one would go about converting, go through the paperwork (like leaving your current church), go trough the usual rites (like baptism, citing a view verses, removing your foreskin, etc) and then you enter that religion, pay whatever fee they want you to pay and live by that code, or pretend to, like most others.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 3, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> lies, thats a lie and you know you're telling a lie.


It's not a lie. However, this is not the place to go into detail about it. Send me a PM if u want to discuss it.

Just like in the US, the traditional/mainstream media is desperately trying to hold on to its former influence/power.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> Technically speaking, they are his businesses, so he actually is entitled to keep them if he wants.
> But ofc, one will fail unless he can somehow manage both, which I highly doubt


If he doesn't put his businesses in a blind trust while he is sitting president, he's in violation of the constitution, and his presidency becomes even more illegitimate.  Of course he doesn't "lose" them by putting them in a blind trust, he'd get them back after being president.  Really goes to show you where his true priorities are that he's even making a fuss about it.


----------



## coinblock (Jan 3, 2017)

Costello said:


> Finally, finally I got an intelligent response out of you... I just wish it weren't so violent and aggressive.



Fair enough, but the initial post in this thread sounded pretty aggressive, too. 



Costello said:


> Incidentally, the link you posted above from CrowdStrike is exactly what I have been begging for all along, so I have to thank you for that  It is the first technical article that I read that actually means something to me and could begin to shift my personal opinion (and I am not saying my opinion matters to anyone else but me). Sadly while the article is quite convincing technically, it doesn't offer any evidence as to a connection between these russian hacking groups and the russian government. I am not saying it isn't possible or that it isn't likely - it sounds likely in fact - just that I haven't personally seen enough, and not for lack of searching. And the fact that Assange is saying "our source isnt russia" doesn't mean much to me, it could have been a third party controlled by Russia without Assange knowing.



I'd encourage you to check out the other post I made in this thread which contains further evidence of Russia's involvement, with corroboration from other independent firms. Obviously the hacks aren't carried out by the FSB or GRU themselves, that would be far too risky. As CrowdStrike and others have pointed out, the hacks are done by groups controlled by these state intelligence/military services while not being affiliated with them on paper. This way, they can hand off the stolen (and potentially doctored?) information to friendly/compromised organizations like WikiLeaks without implicating Russia directly. It's a classic espionage tactic that's been used since Cold War days.


----------



## tbb043 (Jan 3, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> just like when you become a jew or a buddhist or a christian. you contact the local representatives, ask how one would go about converting, go through the paperwork (like leaving your current church), go trough the usual rites (like baptism, citing a view verses, removing your foreskin, etc) and then you enter that religion, pay whatever fee they want you to pay and live by that code, or pretend to, like most others.



You don't have to do any of that to become a Christian. Maybe certain denominations or sects might have membership rites or whatnot, but that's for their particular little domain. All you HAVE to do is accept Christ.

What this, or this entire thread has to do with video games, I have no idea. Bad topic is bad.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 3, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> as for _*becoming*_ a muslim, you convert, just like when you become a jew or a buddhist or a christian. you contact the local representatives, ask how one would go about converting, go through the paperwork (like leaving your current church), go trough the usual rites (like baptism, citing a view verses, removing your foreskin, etc) and then you enter that religion, pay whatever fee they want you to pay and live by that code, or pretend to, like most others.


That's not anything you _have_ to do actually. People _recommend _doing stuff like getting baptized and join a Church. Don't know what you're talking about having to "pay a fee" to become x religion. It's not a secret club or something.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jan 3, 2017)

Chary said:


> That, or, just maybe, the old rich man that sits in his tower making millions of dollars just doesn't have much dirt to uncover


I think that's just delusional when talking about a presidential candidate (and one who has been accused of several conflicts of interest in such a short time, at that), but whatever.
I agree that exposing the truth is a good thing, but only if it happens equally, which wasn't the case here.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 3, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It's not a lie. However, this is not the place to go into detail about it. Send me a PM if u want to discuss it.
> 
> Just like in the US, the traditional/mainstream media is desperately trying to hold on to its former influence/power.



there is nothing to discuss here, the woman wasn't put in prison because she didn't pay the broadcast fee. she was put in detention because she wouldn't lay open her finances as is her duty if requested by the state. she was supposed to lay open her finances as a result of not paying the broadcast fees. but she didn't have to spend even a single minute in detention and still wouldn't have to pay her overdue broadcast fees.
implying that she was imprisoned for not paying the fee (if it was a tax, she actually could be though) and repeating that over and over online is simply wrong.




tbb043 said:


> You don't have to do any of that to become a Christian. Maybe certain denominations or sects might have membership rites or whatnot, but that's for their particular little domain. All you HAVE to do is accept Christ.
> 
> What this, or this entire thread has to do with video games, I have no idea. Bad topic is bad.



i mean, everyone can say "i'm a christian now".
but its only official once you leave your current faith and join the new one. and baptism by an already existing believer is kinda the starting point for any serious believer to take you serious

and by fee, i meant church tax. not sure if thats a thing in every country, but we have that for christian and jewish churches in several european countries. i think you call it tithe or something?
and if i wanted to leave the church where i live and stop having to pay church tax, i'd have to make that official, requiring a notarial declaration and a 25€ service charge


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 3, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Can't get enough of that Scott Baio star power, eh?  I wonder if the song Trump chooses to play as he steps in will cut out halfway through due to copyright claim.


Dick Masterson is love, Dick Masterson is life.


Clydefrosch said:


> there is nothing to discuss here, the woman wasn't put in prison because she didn't pay the broadcast fee. she was put in detention because she wouldn't lay open her finances as is her duty if requested by the state. she was supposed to lay open her finances as a result of not paying the broadcast fees. but she didn't have to spend even a single minute in detention and still wouldn't have to pay her overdue broadcast fees.
> implying that she was imprisoned for not paying the fee (if it was a tax, she actually could be though) and repeating that over and over online is simply wrong.
> 
> i mean, everyone can say "i'm a christian now".
> ...


That sounds ridiculous to me, there's no fee like that where I live now, or in Poland. The Church is not a government institution, it's not state-funded and thus has no claim to tax anyone, all donations are voluntary. They do get a tax break though, but that's a different story.


----------



## Veho (Jan 3, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That sounds ridiculous to me, there's no fee like that where I live now, or in Poland. The Church is not a government institution, it's not state-funded and thus has no claim to tax anyone, all donations are voluntary. They do get a tax break though, but that's a different story.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 3, 2017)

Veho said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax


I'm using a Google Machine too, I read that article as well.  It doesn't change the fact that the premise is ridiculous to me and that the Church should not be funded from taxes - taxes are not voluntary, like a donation. In fact, the less connections the Church has with the state the better, and that's coming from a Christian. Two very different spheres.


----------



## Veho (Jan 3, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> It doesn't change the fact that the premise is ridiculous to me


And yet, here we are.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 3, 2017)

Veho said:


> And yet, here we are.


It's a bit of a shame that the government believes it should chisel money from their citizens on the behalf of a religious organisation. On one hand, practicing religion is a choice, on the other, leaving one often has consequences. Oh well.


----------



## Procyon (Jan 3, 2017)

I read this: Russia said no we didn't do it too fast. The US didn't even point to then first. The NSA says it is true, as does Edward Snowden thinks that too, he has worked with the NSA, so... Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, and he won't come out with a statement, again I read it on URLs posted on Twitter.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2017)

Procyon said:


> I read this: Russia said no we didn't do it too fast. The US didn't even point to then first. The NSA says it is true, as does Edward Snowden thinks that too, he has worked with the NSA, so... Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, and he won't come out with a statement, again I read it on URLs posted on Twitter.


As is typical with Russia you'll have one person confirm something and a second person deny it just to be safe.



> Mr. Ryabkov said officials in the Russian Foreign Ministry were familiar with many of the people he described as Mr. Trump’s entourage. “I cannot say that all, but a number of them maintained contacts with Russian representatives,” Mr. Ryabkov said.
> 
> Later, the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said Mr. Ryabkov had been referring to American politicians and supporters of Mr. Trump, not members of his campaign staff. The contacts were carried out through the Russian ambassador in Washington, who reached out to the senators and other political allies to get a better sense of Mr. Trump’s positions on various issues involving Russia.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/europe/trump-campaign-russia.html?_r=0


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jan 4, 2017)

in an attempt (probably futile) to lighten the mood around here...have a laugh, on me.


----------



## Viri (Jan 4, 2017)

Spoiler


----------



## Xzi (Jan 4, 2017)

Viri said:


> snip


Replace 'Clinton Foundation' with 'Trump Foundation' and you've got the idea.  The Clinton Foundation is a public foundation rated as 95% of all proceeds going to charitable efforts by watchdog organizations.  The Trump Foundation is a private foundation, thus no rating, and there are multiple reports that Donald uses it as his personal expense account (Melania famously bought a self-portrait of Trump for him with foundation funds).  Perhaps equally important is that there is no evidence Trump has ever put any of his own money into his foundation.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 4, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Replace 'Clinton Foundation' with 'Trump Foundation' and you've got the idea.  The Clinton Foundation is a public foundation rated as 95% of all proceeds going to charitable efforts by watchdog organizations.  The Trump Foundation is a private foundation, thus no rating, and there are multiple reports that Donald uses it as his personal expense account (Melania famously bought a self-portrait of Trump for him with foundation funds).  Perhaps equally important is that there is no evidence Trump has ever put any of his own money into his foundation.



Chelsae Clinton used Clinton Foundation funds to fund a luxorious wedding that cost $3 million. FACT!
Also another FACT is the Clintons took most of the Haiti donations.
I can keep going....


----------



## Xzi (Jan 4, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Chelsae Clinton used Clinton Foundation funds to fund a luxorious wedding that cost $3 million. FACT!
> Also another FACT is the Clintons took most of the Haiti donations.
> I can keep going....


Unsure if you think those are actually facts or if you just like typing 'FACT!'


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 4, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Unsure if you think those are actually facts or if you just like typing 'FACT!'


You really need to do your homework and stop watching the MSM Brainwash Box you call the TV!
IN THE AGE OF INFORMATION, IGNORANCE IS A CHOICE!


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jan 4, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> You really need to do your homework and stop watching the MSM Brainwash Box you call the TV!
> IN THE AGE OF INFORMATION, IGNORANCE IS A CHOICE!


Pro tip: regardless of what you're saying, caps lock = loss of credibility.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 4, 2017)

Logan Pockrus said:


> Pro tip: regardless of what you're saying, caps lock = loss of credibility.  Just sayin'.


I could care less! Thanx for your opinion though.
pro tip:  If I wanna type in CAPS, then so be it.  Next time will be Bold and Caps and underlined while in quotes.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jan 4, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> I could care less!
> pro tip:  If I wanna type in CAPS, then so be it.


Yeah, you can type however you want, I don't care.  People just get annoyed when it feels like they're being shouted at, especially when they disagree with what you have to say.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 4, 2017)

Logan Pockrus said:


> Yeah, you can type however you want, I don't care.  People just get annoyed when it feels like they're being shouted at, especially when they disagree with what you have to say.


Once again, who cares!  Seems like your the only one who does care. You do not have to read my posts or even respond to them.
Lets try getting back on the topic that this thread was designed for instead of trying to show your moral superiority!


----------



## Xzi (Jan 4, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> You really need to do your homework and stop watching the MSM Brainwash Box you call the TV!
> IN THE AGE OF INFORMATION, IGNORANCE IS A CHOICE!


I barely even watch TV dude and when I do it's shows without commercials or football.


----------



## OctogenderIceBadger (Jan 4, 2017)

Clearly it was just the democrats being silly again.
They've always wanted to paint the moon pink and put Lenin's face on it. Now they have an excuse


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 4, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> there is nothing to discuss here, the woman wasn't put in prison because she didn't pay the broadcast fee. she was put in detention because she wouldn't lay open her finances as is her duty if requested by the state. she was supposed to lay open her finances as a result of not paying the broadcast fees. but she didn't have to spend even a single minute in detention and still wouldn't have to pay her overdue broadcast fees.
> implying that she was imprisoned for not paying the fee (if it was a tax, she actually could be though) and repeating that over and over online is simply wrong.


You really have no idea. By laying open one's finances you are admitting to owing the TV mafia money. 
If you stop paying for your electricity the electricity company will cut off the electricity. But the TV mafia wants 17,50€ from you for the rest of your life (or till you get homeless). They are acting as if they were a state authority but they are not. The court in Tübingen recently gave a list of reasons why they are a company (e.g. giving huge salaries to their bosses; calling themselves company on their website).

So yes, the poor woman (a German hero) did go to prison for not paying the illegal TV subscription/fee. It goes like this:
1) They aquire information about all people who are living in a home/house in Germany (illegal: data protection)
2) They randomly pick a person of that home/house and ... (illegal: unequal treatment)
3) ... tell him/her to pay even if the person does not use their services (illegal: by definition a subscription requires to get sth in return)
4) If you don't respond at all they quickly do the subscription for yourself without a signature from you or from them (illegal)
5) If you insist on not paying they will use various means of force. The last one is threatening detention if you don't lay open your finances - and if you do and you own something, they will take it from you.

Not even China could come up with this shit. I'd expect this from North Korea and the fact that you defend these practices is pathetic. 
The highest court in Germany would never dare to challenge it because one of the highest judges is the brother of the person who came up with this genius idea.
The government would not do anything either cause it allows the manipulation of the masses by
calling any opposition to the current system (i.e. pro EU, pro migrants, anti Russian, etc) names.

It is very similar to how Trump got elected in the USA. More and more people get sick of being called names for having a different opinion. But Germans have always been and still are sheep. As long as the economy is alright, the resistance will be weak.

A state consists of three things: its people, its government and its borders. Angela Merkel actively did away with the borders and denies that there is such a thing as the German people. In a recent interview she instead said "there are people who have been living here and there are people who have recently arrived here". I don't like Trump at all (he is clumsy, anti environment and might start a war with China etc) but I just love how the establishment and people like you shed a tear or two after election day.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 4, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Ford's in Kentucky is another one that is no longer moving to mexico!


And as of a few hours ago, Michigan is on that list!
WOW!   His record already out weights everything the whole Obama administration has ever thought about doing.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 4, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> So yes, the poor woman (a German hero) did go to prison for not paying the illegal TV subscription/fee. It goes like this:


Wow, someone actually got into prison for not paying fucking ARD?
Hell, good to be paying (for nothing).
Sure, I watch a lot of *NETFLIX*, but I couldn't care less about German TV, but as said, you have to pay all the same.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 4, 2017)

It's not just ARD. They have countless TV and Radio station and huge pensions (sometimes millions of EUR) for former employees.
Originally it was intended to be sort of an independent anti fascist news channel in case of Hitler 2.0 but it was reduced to absurdity:
-political parties influence it
-ever expanding programs and costs (every year they buy the football rights with huge amounts of money - no private channel can compete because they have direct access to people's pockets, i.e. the German sheep)
-before the new regulation (i.e. you have to pay unless you are homeless or blind and deaf at the same time - sometimes even the dead receive letters) more and more people stopped having a or watching TV (loss of income). So they came up with this: Since you can access their service online, you should also pay if you possess a computer (lol).


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jan 4, 2017)

Haha. The western media wonders why people don't trust them anymore.


----------



## bitjacker (Jan 4, 2017)

I actually had nick valentine hack the election.


----------



## Joe88 (Jan 4, 2017)

Darn that trump and his meddling russian hackers


----------



## TeamScriptKiddies (Jan 4, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm not a fan of politics, but regardless of who would win, the other side of the political spectrum would have accused in kind. If a Democratic candidate won, the other side would accuse the same, politics are always so divided and no one can agree on anything, *sigh* Personally it doesn't matter all that much now, it's a damned if you damned if you don't, neither side is truly victorious when it comes to politics.


There is one thing both sides tend to agree on, screwing over the people they're supposed to represent! 'Murica!


----------



## orangy57 (Jan 4, 2017)

Kliffcom said:


> If Hillary had won then they would say everything is legit. They just dont like the Trump and want to get rid of him with stuff like this. The FBI and CIA are on her site and after all that stuff that happend nobody should trust anything that they say.  Especially after they protected Hillary when she got their emails with secret information leaked and got never in legal trouble for that.



If someone said that Hillary was rigged to win by Russia and she did win, it wouldn't really make sense. Russia hates her, so why would they do it? Russia is "friends" with Trump because they think he's a weak leader. They're waiting for him to come into office and then they're gonna cause trouble. They think Trump won't be able to be strict and stop them if they strike other European and Asian countries.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jan 4, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> Darn that trump and his meddling russian hackers


Those darn Kremlins are at it again!!


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 4, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Haha. The western media wonders why people don't trust them anymore.



Every one knows Clinton really used letmein


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 4, 2017)

Trump hasn't even drained the swamp yet, and there is already plenty of butt hurt around here.
Just wait to he throws all those career politicians in prison where they belong... And I'm talking about you Obama, Clinton's, Podesta, Soros, Reid, and the rest of you domestic terrorists!
America will be great again, and you can take that to your world bank!


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jan 5, 2017)

Cylent1 said:


> Trump hasn't even drained the swamp yet, and there is already plenty of butt hurt around here.
> Just wait to he throws all those career politicians in prison where they belong... And I'm talking about you Obama, Clinton's, Podesta, Soros, Reid, and the rest of you domestic terrorists!
> America will be great again, and you can take that to your world bank!


Trump won't be able to take down Soros as great as that would be. Soros is dangerous and a millionaire or a billionaire so if there's a slight chance of anything positive happening, the people have to take action against him and not accept his money.


----------



## filfat (Jan 5, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> It's not like he's the first person to lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote.


 Obama managed to do that pretty well too http://www.mrctv.org/blog/flashback-obama-lost-popular-vote-2008-primary


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 5, 2017)

I believe it. Funny how Russia has more control over how we vote than we do.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jan 5, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Trump won't be able to take down Soros as great as that would be. Soros is dangerous and a millionaire or a billionaire so if there's a slight chance of anything positive happening, the people have to take action against him and not accept his money.



I wonder who has more money, Trump or Soros?
That doesn't mean diddly squat!  Soros will get whats coming to him too...
When Trump says "Clean the Swamp" he's also reffering to the rim and the drain of the swamp!


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 5, 2017)

For what it's worth (after 29 pages, I'm glad anyone is still reading), I think this is partially true.

Here's the part that I *don't* believe: that Russia rigged the election by changing votes. It's not that they would be incapable or don't have enough to gain, but all in all, this is pretty risky. After all, rigging an election is an act of war (unless it's the US doing it /sarcasm). In more than a few ways, the US and the UN are already in a second cold war, but they are not in the most strict of senses: the borders aren't drawn. Alliances can still shift and we don't really know who really supports who. The most clear example is Trump being an open Putin supporter. The irony is that this in itself, I would consider to be good news. There's already way too much chaos in the world today without the two largest superpowers being at each others' throats. Should this hacking thing be true, that means that about the only positive thing I can think of on Donald(1) is actually an operation of mutual back scratching.

But I digress...as said, I don't believe they rigged it by changing a couple hundred thousand votes for Hillary into Donald (too risky). But there are more subtle ways to rig things. The leaks are a good one. During the election, I heard people around me saying that USA had to choose between "the plague and the cholera". It wasn't just me disagreeing with that statement, but not understanding how that idea got into people's heads in the first place. On Trump, I couldn't open a newspaper without being slapped with anekdotes on Trump walking the thin line of "this stuff is legal" and stuff that gives free speech a bad name. On Hillary, there was nothing. Or more precise: page filler. So she used an insecure server. Am I supposed to be outraged or something? Christ...I'd be more outraged if she had stolen an apple as a kid. The very fact that the media was digging up this sort of stuff meant that they simply didn't have enough dirt to throw to begin with. Yet somehow, things got represented as if a lifetime in politics was somehow a bad thing when it comes to a job that consists of politics. I'm not a fan of the "free-market"-capitalism(2) either, but voting in someone who got rich by capitalizing on the flaws is just stupid.

I digress again (sorry). What it comes down to is that "hacking" is more than just illegally changing bits on someone else's computer. It's also changing behavior...manipulating things. Either kinds of hacking are hard to spot(3), so it's mostly a matter of what to believe.

The thing that's troubling, though, isn't so much whether someone rigged things or not, but the percentages in which opinions vary. I mean...there were also people denying 9/11, but if those amounted to 2% of the US population, it would be a lot. On topics like this, it's relatively close. On the election, it was even closer (which is all the more troubling considering how different the stances were). I can't but wonder what will come of this. I mean...in 2000 USA voted a dolt over someone who would have taken precautions on global warming. It ended with a war against an innocent country. Now you've got an even larger idiot as president and there are already a lot more people pissed at the US than there used to be. So I'm worried what will happen next time a terrorist attack happens on your soil (and this is more a matter of 'when' than 'if'). It could be war...but it might just as well civil war. 




(1): I'm serious, here. The guy despises me in so many ways it was never fun to begin with...but I can't even say "I hate everything about him", because at least he CAN say something positive about someone (even though that someone is someone most Americans consider an enemy, but hey...I'm not a US citizen)
(2): it's between brackets because the current capitalism rules are actually far from really being free. It's just referred to by that name because "winner takes all"-capitalism is harder to sell to people
(3): this whole "why don't they provide evidence?" is somewhat moot. This isn't a case where you can just point out to evidence like weapons of mass destruction (and we all know how well THAT "evidence" turned out to be) or dust for fingerprints. Most hackers got caught because of user error or negligence. If an entire professional team with corporate funding would meddle, the result is more in the lines of stuxnet: incredibly specific, stealthy like a motherfocker, and impossible to trace (it's now six years since then...nobody will ever prove who built that).


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 5, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Replace 'Clinton Foundation' with 'Trump Foundation' and you've got the idea.  The Clinton Foundation is a public foundation rated as 95% of all proceeds going to charitable efforts by watchdog organizations.  The Trump Foundation is a private foundation, thus no rating, and there are multiple reports that Donald uses it as his personal expense account (Melania famously bought a self-portrait of Trump for him with foundation funds).  Perhaps equally important is that there is no evidence Trump has ever put any of his own money into his foundation.


Multiple watchdog foundations have put the Clinton Foundation on their watchlist, it's been classified as a slush fund on numerous occasions due to unreasonable overhead costs.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/a-big-slush-fund-for-the-clinton-foundation/


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Multiple watchdog foundations have put the Clinton Foundation on their watchlist, it's been classified as a slush fund on numerous occasions due to unreasonable overhead costs.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/a-big-slush-fund-for-the-clinton-foundation/


If they wanted to use it as a slush fund, it would have been as simple as making it a private foundation instead of a public one.  The Clintons are plenty wealthy without using other people's money, unlike Trump.  It's hard not to be skeptical of negative things about the Clintons, republicans have spent millions of taxpayer dollars starting with their smear campaign against the Clintons in the 90s that still continues to this day.

Here are the actual current ratings for CF: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 5, 2017)

Xzi said:


> If they wanted to use it as a slush fund, it would have been as simple as making it a private foundation instead of a public one.  The Clintons are plenty wealthy without using other people's money, unlike Trump.  It's hard not to be skeptical of negative things about the Clintons, republicans have spent millions of taxpayer dollars starting with their smear campaign against the Clintons in the 90s that still continues to this day.
> 
> Here are the actual current ratings for CF: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680


Sure, they're extremely wealthy. Is that why Hillary proclaimed that she and Bill were "dead broke" once he left office? Where did the money come from?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Sure, they're extremely wealthy. Is that why Hillary proclaimed that she and Bill were "dead broke" once he left office? Where did the money come from?


Once you've been president, opportunities arise.  Businesses/corporations will pay people ludicrous amounts of money to give speeches at meetings, particularly if they think the person giving the speech might have some insights on "being successful."  Shit, sometimes you don't even need any prior achievements to make money this way, you only need an audience dumb enough to buy your bullshitting.  Just look at Sarah Palin and Tim Tebow.


----------



## LinkBlaBla (Jan 5, 2017)

America is misleading everyone Russia always Hacks anyways as America and other nation do it too 1 feet away from the Big Red button waiting confirmation of their paranoid thoughts...We living in a Era where peoples take all rumors and what they see on news far too much seriously and fear them....


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2017)

LinkBlaBla said:


> America is misleading everyone Russia always Hacks anyways as America and other nation do it too 1 feet away from the Big Red button waiting confirmation of their paranoid thoughts...We living in a Era where peoples take all rumors and what they see on news far too much serious and fear them....


Even if Russia wasn't responsible for the hacks it doesn't make things better, given that Trump appointed one of Putin's best buddies as Secretary of State.  Nor does it change the fact that Russians have been in and around Trump's businesses for decades.  The US will be under heavy Russian influence for the next four years regardless.


----------



## LinkBlaBla (Jan 5, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Even if Russia wasn't responsible for the hacks it doesn't make things better, given that Trump appointed one of Putin's best buddies as Secretary of State.  The US will be under heavy Russian influence for the next four years regardless.


Don't forget Kim jung Un! America is in a tight situation at the moment.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 5, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Once you've been president, opportunities arise.  Businesses/corporations will pay people ludicrous amounts of money to give speeches at meetings, particularly if they think the person giving the speech might have some insights on "being successful."  Shit, sometimes you don't even need any prior achievements to make money this way, you only need an audience dumb enough to buy your bullshitting.  Just look at Sarah Palin and Tim Tebow.


Sounds to me like once you've been president and your wife is Secretary of State, lots of people will pay you lots of money in "donations" to get shit done by the right people, but you can call it sweet things if you'd like.


LinkBlaBla said:


> Don't forget Kim jung Un! America is in a tight situation at the moment.


Kim Jong Un couldn't hack his way out of a wet paper sack, let's not pretend that North Korea has any clout in the civilised world, even their warheads are mostly fake.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Sounds to me like once you've been president and your wife is Secretary of State, lots of people will pay you lots of money in "donations" to get shit done by the right people, but you can call it sweet things if you'd like.


You mean lobbyists and super PACs and campaign contributions are a thing?  No WAI?!?!


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jan 6, 2017)

SirBeethoven said:


> I believe it. Funny how Russia has more control over how we vote than we do.


You genuinely believe that because..? The mainstream media told you?


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Jan 7, 2017)

Apparently, US intelligence agencies are only right when they're investigating the Clintons (and when it's found out they found nothing during investigation they clearly where bribed/threatened to stop).

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine they interfered with the election. Changing votes is out of the question but influencing the people is entirely plausible. All you need is feed them the "right" information.

This is something you'd hope the people may be interested or worried about. A big issue is the fear of globalization and we've got word of foreigners mucking about with us. You can't really say it's just a dirty liberal MSM trick either since even the republicans are convinced.

Nothing much we can do about it now though. Just time to sit back and watch the fire burn as the years are filled with Trump supporters trying to defend everything he does. I guess this is how republicans felt when Obama was in office, only things will actually be visibly worse and not just theoretically worse.


----------



## TheMemeGuy (Jan 7, 2017)

Honestly i really meet in the middle with this, like why would Russians associate with Donald Trump, why would they hack the election and why would they do this to the election when their just another country?And how would Donald Trump convince or make them hack the election?How would Russia make it possible for them to hack the Election. But Donald Trump Thinks the election is rigged which make me meet at the middle with this conspiracy of Russia hacking the Election


----------



## Lacius (Jan 7, 2017)

Not sure if this has been posted, but here's the government document that demonstrates that Russia influenced the US election, how they did it, why they did it, etc.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/ica_2017_01.pdf

Edit: Also, here's my girl Rachel doing a great piece on the report if you don't feel like reading it.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...-calling-out-his-rigged-election-849593411894


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 7, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Not sure if this has been posted, but here's the government document that demonstrates that Russia influenced the US election, how they did it, why they did it, etc.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/ica_2017_01.pdf
> 
> ...


http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16980

Regardless I agree that we should take it with a grain of salt and be cautious


----------



## Lacius (Jan 7, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16980
> 
> Regardless I agree that we should take it with a grain of salt and be cautious


I would never argue that a claim should be believed because of who is making it. All claims should be accepted or rejected solely because of the evidence.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 7, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I would never argue that a claim should be believed because of who is making it. All claims should be accepted or rejected solely because of the evidence.


Nevermeant to imply that you.

But regardless what do I think? Really nothing as US Intel is a pretty complex thing to try to understand.

 Although I do think the media is handling the affair horribly as are certain members of Congress (*cough Sen.Graham cough*) especially when considering we also have largely influenced elections for our own desires.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jan 7, 2017)

On a side note, if the US wouldn't have a stupid winner-takes-all voting system, there would have been less controversy. I mean, half of the americans voted for Trump, the other half for Hillary. By giving Trump everything and Hillary nothing, basically the system dumped a huge load of crap to half of it's citizen.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 7, 2017)

WiiUBricker said:


> On a side note, if the US wouldn't have a stupid winner-takes-all voting system, there would have been less controversy. I mean, half of the americans voted for Trump, the other half for Hillary. By giving Trump everything and Hillary nothing, basically the system dumped a huge load of crap to half of it's citizen.


Agreed as the fact that the majority went both "not Trump" and "not Clinton" is personally something of concern.


----------



## The Minish LAN (Jan 7, 2017)

hotline miami but 2017


----------



## Lacius (Jan 7, 2017)

WiiUBricker said:


> On a side note, if the US wouldn't have a stupid winner-takes-all voting system, there would have been less controversy. I mean, half of the americans voted for Trump, the other half for Hillary. By giving Trump everything and Hillary nothing, basically the system dumped a huge load of crap to half of it's citizen.





RevPokemon said:


> Agreed as the fact that the majority went both "not Trump" and "not Clinton" is personally something of concern.


Not to mention we have a system where the winner doesn't even need to win a plurality of votes, let alone a majority.

I'd like to see a preferencial voting system, but that's not going to happen. I'd also like to see an end to the Electrical College, but that's not going to happen either.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 7, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I'd also like to see an end to the Electrical College, but that's not going to happen either.


Well theoretically if the whole popular vote pact project ever amounts to something than that would effectively have the potential to end the electoral college although the issue of course is that it still is pretty far off and that one would have to consider the constitutionality of it.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jan 7, 2017)

"Russia hacking the DNC" is the 2016 version of "Saddam has nuclear weapons!"


----------



## LinkBlaBla (Jan 7, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Sounds to me like once you've been president and your wife is Secretary of State, lots of people will pay you lots of money in "donations" to get shit done by the right people, but you can call it sweet things if you'd like.
> Kim Jong Un couldn't hack his way out of a wet paper sack, let's not pretend that North Korea has any clout in the civilised world, even their warheads are mostly fake.




So now they Test fake warhead and make fake explosion over seas??  America is the problem they are everywhere around Russia and China and other country that why if you read my sig you clearly see that if you eliminate the problem you fix almost 90% of the problem


----------



## Viri (Jan 7, 2017)

I kinda cannot help but laugh about the irony of the CIA investigating Russia "hacking" our election. Then again, if there is one thing the CIA knows about, and that's "hacking" an election. I'm pretty sure most of South America, Central America, Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, and such can attest to that.

Just for the record, I shilled for Trump for free! The salt mining the left has given me at the end has paid me back and then some.  I truly wish the election didn't end, it was just too entertaining.

Also, let's forget this ever happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record
God, they were so fucking annoying.




Foxi4 said:


> Sounds to me like once you've been president and your wife is Secretary of State, lots of people will pay you lots of money in "donations" to get shit done by the right people, but you can call it sweet things if you'd like.



HEY! Are you trying to imply that the good charitable people of the Saudi Arabian government were donating to the A+ graded Clinton Foundation for favors?!? The Saudis just happen to be very charitable, you might be wondering, "Why won't such a rich country just make their own charity?". WELL Hillary Clinton's foundation happens to be A+++, the good people of Haiti can attest to that!


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 7, 2017)

Viri said:


> Also, let's forget this ever happened.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record
> God, they were so fucking annoying.


Can agree that CTR members were a huge pain in the ass and honestly worse than Trump's online supporters in a way. Fought em when it came to Johnson's Wikipedia page but thankfully we beat em.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2017)

LinkBlaBla said:


> So now they Test fake warhead and make fake explosion over seas??  America is the problem they are everywhere around Russia and China and other country that why if you read my sig you clearly see that if you eliminate the problem you fix almost 90% of the problem


I said most, not all. North Korea is a closed off country with little import and export going on, their functioning warheads are mostly Soviet hand-me-downs. The ones they're parading around are mock-ups made of wood and leather, or so say the footage analysts - it was on the news a couple years back. For God's sake, we're talking about a country that has a fake city close to the border so that South Koreans think they're wealthy, are you kidding me? Their nuclear arsenal is decades out of date, it's a miracle that some of them do lift off. They keep trying to launch those things and they keep falling from the sky, do you expect me to treat their futile attempts at arming themselves seriously?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-paraded-North-Korea-fake-say-scientists.html


----------



## LinkBlaBla (Jan 7, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I said most, not all. North Korea is a closed off country with little import and export going on, their functioning warheads are mostly Soviet hand-me-downs. The ones they're parading around are mock-ups made of wood and leather, or so say the footage analysts - it was on the news a couple years back. For God's sake, we're talking about a country that has a fake city close to the border so that South Koreans think they're wealthy, are you kidding me? Their nuclear arsenal is decades out of date, it's a miracle that some of them do lift off.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-paraded-North-Korea-fake-say-scientists.html




Why would they continue doing test then? , check again internet is not very reliable , because a spy on north korea would not last very long , we don't know if they are at latest technologies or use some oldies like you say , i think they are preparing because of Russia Army building up they will follow Russia and send army and warhead into USA even if it is some piece of junk or not fully functional those news are fake probably , what i have learned from the past 2 week is that America news and all sites with war news are 95% fake those peoples made up these story I don't know why but it seems that today human believe more in fake news and stick with that than going into full research mode and check if it is actually realistic and true! For the fact about the Fake city it is made so plane and peoples don't see that it is only a military nation!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2017)

LinkBlaBla said:


> Why would they continue doing test then? , check again internet is not very reliable , because a spy on north korea would not last very long , we don't know if they are at latest technologies or use some oldies like you say , i think they are preparing because of Russia Army building up they will follow Russia and send army and warhead into USA even if it is some piece of junk or not fully functional those news are fake probably , what i have learned from the past 2 week is that America news and all sites with war news are 95% fake those peoples made up these story I don't know why but it seems that today human believe more in fake news and stick with that than going into full research mode and check if it is actually realistic and true! For the fact about the Fake city it is made so plane and peoples don't see that it is only a military nation!


...you have heard of spy satellites, right? You can catch a photo of anything there from orbit, they'd have to live underground to hide,  and they're not moles. They're doing the tests in a futile attempt to remain threatening, nobody gives a shit about them anymore. If the U.S. really wanted to, it could glass the shithole, but as you've probably noticed, they haven't done that.


----------



## LinkBlaBla (Jan 7, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> ...you have heard of spy satellites, right? You can catch a photo of anything there from orbit, they'd have to live underground to hide,  and they're not moles. They're doing the tests in a futile attempt to remain threatening, nobody gives a shit about them anymore. If the U.S. really wanted to, it could glass the shithole, but as you've probably noticed, they haven't done that.




Simply because it is allied with Russia ,China and India and other nation that i don't know they will simply wait for USA or Russia to do something before acting!


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Jan 7, 2017)

Viri said:


> Are you trying to imply that the good charitable people of the Saudi Arabian government were donating to the A+ graded Clinton Foundation for favors?!?


About as likely as Trump being indebted to them for the millions they've given him for the various hotels and businesses his family has there.



Viri said:


> Just for the record, I shilled for Trump for free! The salt mining the left has given me at the end has paid me back and then some.  I truly wish the election didn't end, it was just too entertaining.


Sentiments like this are what disappoint me the most.
Politics aren't a game or some sports team rivalry. If you voted just to spite the other side (AKA Americans) and not because you felt it was in the best interest for the country as a whole and are actively cheering because people are genuinely concerned about their future then you are pretty messed up in the head.

Then again I'm one to talk. I'll probably be feeling the schadenfreude when those who voted for Trump end up being unable to pay for their medical bills.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2017)

TheMemeGuy said:


> Honestly i really meet in the middle with this, like why would Russians associate with Donald Trump, why would they hack the election and why would they do this to the election when their just another country?And how would Donald Trump convince or make them hack the election?How would Russia make it possible for them to hack the Election. But Donald Trump Thinks the election is rigged which make me meet at the middle with this conspiracy of Russia hacking the Election


Trump's modeling agency used a whole lot of Russian women, especially in the early days.  No doubt they worked for less than US models were asking.  Since then I'm sure Trump has established plenty of financial ties to people and businesses in Russia.

The why is pretty simple: Obama hasn't put up with Russia's shit, and Hillary didn't seem like she would've either.  Trump, OTOH, was suspiciously friendly to Russia's interests, even where they would be actively detrimental to the US, throughout his entire campaign.  Now that Trump has been elected and has appointed Putin's friend the Exxon Mobil CEO as Secretary of State, the conflicts of interest are in plain sight.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2017)

LinkBlaBla said:


> Simply because it is allied with Russia ,China and India and other nation that i don't know they will simply wait for USA or Russia to do something before acting!


North Korea is a nation of isolationism and starvation, they're not in a position to assemble an arsenal competitive with a superpower like the U.S.A, just like Cuba isn't. You are correct though, it hasn't been toppled yet due to its proximity and/or association with China and possibly Russia. Not that we need to topple it - North Korea has nothing worth fighting for.


----------



## LinkBlaBla (Jan 7, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> North Korea is a nation of isolationism and starvation, they're not in a position to assemble an arsenal competitive with a superpower like the U.S.A, just like Cuba isn't. You are correct though, it hasn't been toppled yet due to its proximity and/or association with China and possibly Russia. Not that we need to topple it - North Korea has nothing worth fighting for.



True that why USA use north korea as a presidential getaway!


----------



## filfat (Jan 8, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Not to mention we have a system where the winner doesn't even need to win a plurality of votes, let alone a majority.
> 
> I'd like to see a preferencial voting system, but that's not going to happen. I'd also like to see an end to the Electrical College, but that's not going to happen either.


Yep, it's 100% fair that California, New York and Washington would be able to decide the president elect without needing any input from any other state. Electoral college is there to make sure the voting is fair for all states.

You do realize even EU uses a system similar to electoral college right? Otherwise Germany and France would've basically control all of EU.

A way to actually fix the system would be to require identification to vote. It's absolutely ridiculous that this isn't required yet.


----------



## Viri (Jan 8, 2017)

filfat said:


> A way to actually fix the system would be to require identification to vote. It's absolutely ridiculous that this isn't required yet.


Democrats seem to think it suppresses voting. You need an ID to buy cigs/beer, to get a library card, to drive a car, to get electricity/gas/water turned on, to rent/buy a house, but not to vote? I think every other country but ours requires IDs to vote(correct me if I'm wrong). Voting IDs should be free to every US citizen 18 and over.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 8, 2017)

filfat said:


> Yep, it's 100% fair that California, New York and Washington would be able to decide the president elect without needing any input from any other state. Electoral college is there to make sure the voting is fair for all states.
> 
> You do realize even EU uses a system similar to electoral college right? Otherwise Germany and France would've basically control all of EU.
> 
> A way to actually fix the system would be to require identification to vote. It's absolutely ridiculous that this isn't required yet.


Your assertion that those three states would decide the election is just untrue. For example, a huge percent of the country's Republicans live in California, so it would take a lot more of the country to win than just those states. I can't think of a single good argument for allowing someone who got fewer votes nationwide to become that nation's president. It's absurd, and whatever way you look at the Electoral College, it's a form of gerrymandering.

There also isn't an in-person voter fraud problem, so there's no reason to talk about ID.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 8, 2017)

filfat said:


> Yep, it's 100% fair that California, New York and Washington would be able to decide the president elect without needing any input from any other state. Electoral college is there to make sure the voting is fair for all states.
> 
> You do realize even EU uses a system similar to electoral college right? Otherwise Germany and France would've basically control all of EU.
> 
> A way to actually fix the system would be to require identification to vote. It's absolutely ridiculous that this isn't required yet.


california, new york, and washington contain 50%+ of the population of tje US? and they all vote the same way? weird.

we all have to register for armed services, why not just register them to vote when teens do that? and treat it like jury duty? with days off and all that? though identificaton would limit the number of people that could vote, unless you make people get one while registering for armed services as well.


----------



## grossaffe (Jan 8, 2017)

osaka35 said:


> california, new york, and washington contain 50%+ of the population of tje US? and they all vote the same way? weird.
> 
> we all have to register for armed services, why not just register them to vote when teens do that? and treat it like jury duty? with days off and all that? though identificaton would limit the number of people that could vote, unless you make people get one while registering for armed services as well.


Only men have to register for the draft.  Are you trying to suppress women's suffrage?


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 8, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> Only men have to register for the draft.  Are you trying to suppress women's suffrage?


oh, i thought they passed that thing that made women have to register same as men. or was that just talking about them being abke to join or something? it's silly they aren't registered.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 8, 2017)

Lacius said:


> For example, a huge percent of the country's Republicans live in California, so it would take a lot more of the country to win than just those states.


Further this is shown within the Blue Wall theory.




Lacius said:


> I can't think of a single good argument for allowing someone who got fewer votes nationwide to become that nation's president. It's absurd, and whatever way you look at the Electoral College, it's a form of gerrymandering.


(Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate) Because the system really is not a presidential election so much as a weighted collection of 51 different independent elections somewhat like the World Series is.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Jan 8, 2017)




----------



## Viri (Jan 8, 2017)

Russia hacked Hillary's brain to make her not listen to her husband and to not campaign in Wisconsin, and for some reason to campaign in Texas instead.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 8, 2017)

Vulpes Abnocto said:


>


https://twitter.com/ckilpatrick/status/817515823950680064


----------



## YetoJesse (Jan 9, 2017)

I think everyone should just laugh it off as if a 9 year old is trying to get clever. just see it as a joke and ignore it... it's starting to look like a game.


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Jan 9, 2017)

Vulpes Abnocto said:


>


This doesn't quite work when you learn that it's not just the Democrats who are accusing Russia of meaningfully interfering with the election.

We're all so well politically trained that if the opposite party says a pile of dog poo smells and tastes like dog poo we say "no, it's like it's ice cream!" and grab a spoonful. We're currently following that dog, spoon ready, just so we can contradict the other.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 9, 2017)

SomeKindOfUsername said:


> This doesn't quite work when you learn that it's not just the Democrats who are accusing Russia of meaningfully interfering with the election.


S/O to Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Jan 10, 2017)

SomeKindOfUsername said:


> We're all so well politically trained that if the opposite party says a pile of dog poo smells and tastes like dog poo we say "no, it's like it's ice cream!" and grab a spoonful.



Not all of us. There are quite a few that refused to blindly follow along behind the pied pipers that mass media shoved down our throats.

In my opinion they're both awful.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 10, 2017)

Nothing quite like politics to cause divides among friends, eh? Because I see that too much and it's the reason I rarely or willingly discuss them, no matter how civil I try to be.


----------



## netovsk (Jan 10, 2017)

Unless the leaks were fake, I don't think it matters because the leaks informed voters rather than deceive. The ultimate decision came down to american citizens.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jan 12, 2017)

netovsk said:


> Unless the leaks were fake, I don't think it matters because the leaks informed voters rather than deceive. The ultimate decision came down to american citizens.


Yup, yup. Regardless of who hacked what if anything (who even knows at this point), the actual voting machines or voting systems were untouched. We learned a bit more about internal corruption in the DNC. I'm sure the RNC has similar corruption, but once that kind of info is out, you can't just dismiss it on grounds that "you were hacked." If we find the alleged hackers, great, but the info's out, no denying.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 12, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Scary, isn't it? Reminds one of North Korea. You can't even insist on a trial, as far as I know.
> Fun fact: It's possible to go to jail in Germany for not paying the obligatory propaganda TV fee of 17,50 EUR per month. It's illegal but neither courts nor politicians do anything against it as it's a huge money generator (8 billion per year) and it gives politicians a platform.
> 
> BTW I'm interested to know how you became a Muslim. I can't figure out how to send a PM though.



a friend (well now my fiancee) whom i known for 11 years is muslim (also a convert) in order to marry a muslim woman you need to be muslim (has to do with preventing women from abandoning the religion as for the "need to alert the government" you do not that's where trumps muslim registry will fail Terrorist will lie and still carry out attacks (I hate how ppl are using islam as a false flag so to speak for terrorism where it actually promotes peace I mean hell christans have blood on their hands as well (the crusades is a BIG example but this is off track


----------



## Viri (Jan 15, 2017)

https://twitter.com/Slate/status/820044120991420416 

Oh man, it looks like Trump has been officially blown the fuck out!



Spoiler



Also, dem comments


----------



## RevPokemon (Jan 15, 2017)

Viri said:


> https://twitter.com/Slate/status/820044120991420416
> 
> Oh man, it looks like Trump has been officially blown the fuck out!
> 
> ...


From Slate: _"I know that Islam is also not necessarily tolerant towards homosexuality. … I also didn't understand much about Islam other than that it's a religion that hundreds of millions of people in the world follow."

And so he resolved to learn more. He turned first to Wikipedia, then forums and Tumblr pages._

No comment...


----------



## Touko White (Jan 15, 2017)

I think it's bullshit from the media to try to ignite loads of stupid drama.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 12, 2017)

Okay...I believe a bump is in place at this time. Reason: Donald Trump fires head of the FBI James Comey. As such, Comey's one of the leading authorities on the investigation of this whole "what influence did Russia had on the election?" thing.

As news reporters over here pointed out, it was just last week that Comey asked for increased forces on this case. And this has been passed to the president.


Even more ironic (if not to say absurd) is the reason: he's fired because of his public statement on the investigation on Clinton's mail server. At that time, this was incredibly good news for Donald (this was just after that "grab 'em by the pussy" reveal, so it's far from unlikely that Comey helped Trump to the presidency) and he even publicly praised the man for it.

I'm not much of a conspiracy believer, but that reason for firing Comey is just utter bullshit. And that timing is just too convenient (Christ...it's not like Trump didn't know these facts).

End result: I want to change my vote from "if the FBI and CIA and other agencies say it, we should take their word for it" to "Yes, without the shadow of a doubt". Face it, America: you've got a second Watergate scandal on your hands. Sorry for the fans, but your president's a crook and belongs in jail.


----------



## Sketchy1 (May 12, 2017)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay...I believe a bump is in place at this time. Reason: Donald Trump fires head of the FBI James Comey. As such, he's one of the leading authorities on the investigation of this whole "what influence did Russia had on the election?" thing.
> 
> As news reporters over here pointed out, it was just last week that Comey asked for increased forces on this case. And this has been passed to the president.
> 
> ...



The timing is questionable, but to be fair he closed a clearly not completed case on hillary (despite an almost unanimous opinion to not to) to open one on trump. that would get anyone mad.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 12, 2017)

The whole Russia interference is so mysterious. What exactly are people accusing the Russian government of? What does meddling in the US election mean? Putin did not even tell the Americans to vote for Trump. But Obama constantly told other nations who to vote for. Is that interference?


----------



## DeoNaught (May 12, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The whole Russia interference is so mysterious. What exactly are people accusing the Russian government of? What does meddling in the US election mean? Putin did not even tell the Americans to vote for Trump. But Obama constantly told other nations who to vote for. Is that interference?


the interference is that they made it that Trump would win instead of Hillary


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 12, 2017)

How exactly? By financing RT? Then western media would interfere in other countries' elections all the time (including state media).


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (May 12, 2017)

Russian and American far-right hackers and lobbies tried recently to fuck up French Presidential Election by pirating 9 GB of En Marche!'s e-mails, and joining obvious fakes to that. Thankfully, here in France media isn't even allowed to talk about politics as long as the election is less than 48 hours away. RT also militated in favor of Le Pen.


----------



## Viri (May 13, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The whole Russia interference is so mysterious. What exactly are people accusing the Russian government of? What does meddling in the US election mean? Putin did not even tell the Americans to vote for Trump. But Obama constantly told other nations who to vote for. Is that interference?



To be honest, they been crying about this for so long, that I have no idea. I think the whole hacking of John Podesta is one of them, but he just had a shitty password, and actually got tricked by a phishing site, that even 10 year olds aren't fooled by. Which lead to alllllllllllllllllllllllll his emails being leaked. And, I think the DNC hack, which just showed that they were total scum bags, but, hey, I didn't need a hack to tell me politicians were scum bags, lol. 

Hah, I remember when Debbie Wasserman Schultz was caught up in those emails, and proved she was bias assssssssss fuck. She resigned, and then, the same exact day, Hillary gave her a new position on her team, giving a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle finger to Bernie supports. Shit like that is why she lost. But that's still some funny shit.

Man, 2016 was fun, I wish we could go back.


----------



## Cylent1 (May 15, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The whole Russia interference is so mysterious. What exactly are people accusing the Russian government of? What does meddling in the US election mean? Putin did not even tell the Americans to vote for Trump. But Obama constantly told other nations who to vote for. Is that interference?


Thats the problem! 1/2 the people have been brainwashed and are no longer competent to even think for themselves.  THIS IS THE SADDEST GENERATION EVER!


----------



## Sketchy1 (May 16, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> What does meddling in the US election mean?


basically its like us being ruled by a foreign country


----------



## Taleweaver (May 16, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> The timing is questionable, but to be fair he closed a clearly not completed case on hillary (despite an almost unanimous opinion to not to) to open one on trump. that would get anyone mad.



Erm...I'm not an American, but are you saying that the average american has their priorities just completely backwards? 

Allegation 1: Hillary Clinton uses an insecure mail server, thus showing she's ignorant towards the safety of the nation
Allegation 2: Donald Trump has close ties to Russia, who rigged the elections in his favor

I dunno, but in Comey's place I'd say that allegation 2 is just a SLIGHT bit higher on the priority scale.  If I go against an 'almost unanimous opinion' of Americans with that(which I seriously doubt), then so be it.

Besides...for some bizarre reason Trump has just decided that he can do better than use insufficiently secured mail servers and directly _share _top secret information with Russia (source: his own fucking twitter account). <*insert a bang-head-against-wall smiley here*>


*sigh*
Look...my view of Americans was already dimmed when you nearly impeached a president for having a mistress yet happily re-elected the next one who happened to start a war against an innocent country. But can you please stop digging for new low grounds and throw this guy out of office? Like...as soon as possible? I'm losing faith in humanity over here.


----------



## Joe88 (May 16, 2017)

Taleweaver said:


> Besides...for some bizarre reason Trump has just decided that he can do better than use insufficiently secured mail servers and directly _share _top secret information with Russia (source: his own fucking twitter account). <*insert a bang-head-against-wall smiley here*>



Why do you believe a liberal media outlet that posts an article then puts "sources say" at the end to somehow validate it?
This is the same outlet that claimed russia hacked the US electrical grid, which was proven to be fake news and has been constanly pushing an anti trump agenda.
I would be more concerned that this "story" was published less than an hour after the seth rich story broke and he sent over 40000 emails to wikileaks, but I let you guess which one dominated the news cycle...


----------



## JFlare (May 17, 2017)

I feel that Russia did. I am not really politically correct, and I don't pay much attention to politics, but after Mr. Trump fired that FBI director, I think Trump is hiding something.


----------



## DarthDub (May 17, 2017)

No.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (May 17, 2017)

There's just so much crap being thrown around everywhere, I don't know who or what to believe. Since I'm pretty much inconsequential in determining the fate of what goes down from here (I'm under 18 so I can't vote on anything), I'm just gonna casually sit on the sidelines and let this play out. We'll see what's what in due time, methinks.


----------



## Captain_N (May 17, 2017)

if they did hack it saved us from having a progressive liberal crook from being president.....


----------



## Sketchy1 (May 17, 2017)

Taleweaver said:


> Allegation 1: Hillary Clinton uses an insecure mail server, thus showing she's ignorant towards the safety of the nation




both seem like pretty much the same scale anyway.
ITS ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY


----------



## Taleweaver (May 18, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> Why do you believe a liberal media outlet that posts an article then puts "sources say" at the end to somehow validate it?


Erm...Why would I _not_ believe a "liberal media"* when Trump himself tweets the same thing, confirming the thing?  Or do you believe Trump's communication team - who denied it, which lead to Donald being mad at them - over both the newspapers and the president?



*is that meant to be demeaning, by the way? I read liberal media pretty much my whole life and they've only very occasionally been wrong...which gives them far more credibility than one random guy who refused to further talk to his biographer when said biographer talked to someone Trump didn't like.


Joe88 said:


> This is the same outlet that claimed russia hacked the US electrical grid, which was proven to be fake news and has been constanly pushing an anti trump agenda.


What do you mean, 'proven'? The investigation was ongoing when Trump fired Comey.




Joe88 said:


> I would be more concerned that this "story" was published less than an hour after the seth rich story broke and he sent over 40000 emails to wikileaks, but I let you guess which one dominated the news cycle...





Sketchy1 said:


> both seem like pretty much the same scale anyway.
> ITS ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY


I guess I can't but say my priorities are different (sorry...I've never heard of Seth Rich, so I can't comment on that  ).


----------



## Eightcoins (May 27, 2017)

Why would Russia take Trump as some form of puppet tho?
It wouldnt make sense,unless Trump is more intelligent than he seems.
Also what would the point in rigging an American Election to let Trump win be?
If he isnt a good actor,he really does change his opionion every second.
So he could suddenly just start a War with Russia if he wanted to.
And for the people thinking hes friends with Putin:He is propably not,Putin is just also a really conservative politican.
And even if Putin would have different views,its part of Trumps Job to be nice to him.
I mean he didnt insult the pope when he just handed him a book about global warming.


----------



## Flocker (May 27, 2017)

I'm sure they put in efforts to influence it at least. I mean they're Russia

are we to expect any different?


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (May 30, 2017)

"*There's a slight chance it could be true, but no actual evidence has been made public yet"*
That's what I voted, and I still believe that. But really, I don't get it "liberal media made this up" LMAO. Fucking complotism all over again. And when it was revelated that Hillary had used a private e-mail? The media weren't bad and lying? -.-

Anyways, here's something. Each fucking time someone criticizes Trump, he is immediately categorized as an almost-communist. But I think you Reps didn't really understand the matter. *TRUMP CRITICIZERS DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT HIS POLITICAL OPINION*. Even if I was a member of the Tea Party, I would be ashamed that a man with a 5-year-old brain, called Donald J. Trump, is the president of one of, if not the most powerful country in the entire world. Trump is just plain stupid and full of shit. Even Ted Cruz would've been far better than him. Really.


----------



## Gizametalman (May 30, 2017)

No, I just believe that most Americans wants to see the world on fire.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 30, 2017)

The most frustrating thing is we might never know the truth. If only we lived in a world without secret services (even though that would mean no James Bond movies.  ).


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (May 30, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The most frustrating thing is we might never know the truth. If only we lived in a world without secret services (even though that would mean no James Bond movies.  ).


Yup. I honestly believe that Russia tried, and perhaps managed a slight bit, to lobby the election, but hacked? I'm not sure at all.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The whole Russia interference is so mysterious. What exactly are people accusing the Russian government of? What does meddling in the US election mean? Putin did not even tell the Americans to vote for Trump. But Obama constantly told other nations who to vote for. Is that interference?


Supposedly a lot of the interference was paid government trolls (yeah, I'm serious) posing as pro-Trump patriots online. It's actually kind of believable, what with how much online communities like Facebook and Flipboard had to do with the election. There's also the obvious WikiLeaks hacks that had no equivalent on the RNC side

And while that particular instance wouldn't count as interference, we have actually removed democratically elected leaders from power and instated our own in various countries, and I'm absolutely not proud of that


----------



## the_randomizer (May 30, 2017)

I still think people are bitter that their candidate didn't win, but if someone else won like Bernie, people would complain and accuse that of being rigged all the same. Doesn't matter who won, people would bitch about it ad nauseum no matter who it was.  No matter the party that wins, no one is going to be happy, it's always  been that way.


You want to know why I didn't want Clinton to win? Because she supports that damned TPP bullshit, which would've royally screwed over so many people on the internet.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (May 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I still think people are bitter that their candidate didn't win, but if someone else won like Bernie, people would complain and accuse that of being rigged all the same. Doesn't matter who won, people would bitch about it ad nauseum no matter who it was.  No matter the party that wins, no one is going to be happy, it's always  been that way.


Yup, pretty much. Here in France, since Le Pen supporters knew she'd never win, they basically spent the whole campaing saying that the media was campaigning for Macron w/o giving any evidence.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I still think people are bitter that their candidate didn't win, but if someone else won like Bernie, people would complain and accuse that of being rigged all the same. Doesn't matter who won, people would bitch about it ad nauseum no matter who it was.  No matter the party that wins, no one is going to be happy, it's always  been that way.


I'd believe that more if federal agencies hadn't publicly said there was evidence of interference


----------



## the_randomizer (May 30, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'd believe that more if federal agencies hadn't publicly said there was evidence of interference



Even so, Clinton being a proponent of that damn TPP was enough for me not to want to see her in power.  People tried to investigate her involvement with Benghazi and the mysterious email server deletion and nothing came of that.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Even so, Clinton being a proponent of that damn TPP was enough for me not to want to see her in power.


There are a lot of reasons for a lot of people not to want both candidates. I'm not happy with the results, but it's not because of that that I feel like the investigations should continue


----------



## the_randomizer (May 30, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> There are a lot of reasons for a lot of people not to want both candidates. I'm not happy with the results, but it's not because of that that I feel like the investigations should continue



I'm gonna be honest and say I f*cking hate politics as a whole, all they do is bring out the worst in people, at least, from what I've seen.  I've yet to see any form of political debates that don't end up leaving a sour taste 

What I often see:
No one agrees on anything
The other party is right and the other party is dead wrong
It's wrong to have opposing opinions to the other party
Agree with me or else you're getting publicly crucified
The list goes on

Not talking about anyone specifically, but political discussions in general


**sigh*

*
If Trump gets investigated, then it's fair that Clinton does as well.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> If Trump gets investigated, then it's fair that Clinton does as well.


She already was, that's part of why she lost the election lol. It's also Trumps lame excuse for firing Comey


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (May 30, 2017)

Lol, 241 votes saying the FBI AND CIA are full of shit? I don't think people know how they work. That or they're just trolls.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 30, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Lol, 241 votes saying the FBI AND CIA are full of shit? I don't think people know how they work. That or they're just trolls.



It's bad enough people get criticized for supporting one party versus another, it's apparently a crime to have differing views with politics.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> It's bad enough people get criticized for supporting one party versus another, it's apparently a crime to have differing views with politics.


The FBI and CIA aren't politicized establishments though


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (May 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> It's bad enough people get criticized for supporting one party versus another, it's apparently a crime to have differing views with politics.


If your intelligence agency is really partisan, Trump would've been dead by now. And your country would be screwed.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 30, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The FBI and CIA aren't politicized establishments though



I'm speaking as a generality, these political discussions, having opinions, not agreeing with someone else's views, apparently, is seemingly frowned upon here; the FBI investigated Clinton, sure, but was she held accountable? No, she wasn't.

Fuck political views (doesn't matter what party one supports versus another), I'm done discussing politics, I feel absolutely sick to my stomach, I.... I.....oh man   Should've kept my sodding mouth shut.


Edit: If people are going to hate me for my different opinions, so be it, I won't stop them.


----------



## queendude (May 30, 2017)

its the most ridiculous thing ive heard


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm speaking as a generality, these political discussions, having opinions, not agreeing with someone else's views, apparently, is seemingly frowned upon here; the FBI investigated Clinton, sure, but was she held accountable? No, she wasn't.


It's more like they investigated her and found nothing worth holding her accountable FOR


> Fuck political views (doesn't matter what party one supports versus another), I'm done discussing politics, I feel absolutely sick to my stomach, I.... I.....oh man   Should've kept my sodding mouth shut.
> 
> 
> Edit: If people are going to hate me for my different opinions, so be it, I won't stop them.


I have nothing against you, i actually think you're a pretty decent guy and I learn a lot about your views every time we're in a conversation together. There are just some instances where I feel you're misinformed by propaganda


----------



## RevPokemon (May 30, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> There are just some instances where I feel you're misinformed by propaganda


I have not kept up with this but such as?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> I have not kept up with this but such as?


"If Donald Trump is going to be investigated then Clinton should be too"


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (May 30, 2017)

What cracks me up is that I saw McCain on Euronews (trashy news) blaming the Russians. Haha.

The Russians must be hella drunk by now with each 'Russian did this, Russian did that.' xD


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (May 30, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> "If Donald Trump is going to be investigated then Clinton should be too"


Because _that_ sentence just reeks of bias, oh yes..._/s_


----------



## the_randomizer (May 30, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's more like they investigated her and found nothing worth holding her accountable FOR
> 
> I have nothing against you, i actually think you're a pretty decent guy and I learn a lot about your views every time we're in a conversation together. There are just some instances where I feel you're misinformed by propaganda



I don't know if I have or not, as politics isn't my favorite subject at all, even less so when I try to express my opinions. Sometimes, like right now, I feel I'd be better if I just shut my festering gob and right out not express my views at all. Just another
example of being too bloody hard on myself *sigh*.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Because _that_ sentence just reeks of bias, oh yes..._/s_


It's not that it's biased, it's that she's already [email protected]#!%*& been investigated. Our current President made a "yuje" deal about that on the campaign trail

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



the_randomizer said:


> I don't know if I have or not, as politics isn't my favorite subject at all, even less so when I try to express my opinions. Sometimes, like right now, I feel I'd be better if I just shut my festering gob and right out not express my views at all. Just another
> example of being too bloody hard on myself *sigh*.


Nah dude you're good. Its better that stuff like this actually gets discussed, because then at least (hopefully) one side or the other learns something


----------



## the_randomizer (May 30, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's not that it's biased, it's that she's already [email protected]#!%*& been investigated. Our current President made a "yuje" deal about that on the campaign trail
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I suppose that is fair enough, but I've been having a helluva time thinking right at all due to stress and anxiety regarding my current employment situation; it's been putting a toll on my ability to have proper, cognitive thoughts.


----------



## grossaffe (May 30, 2017)

Gizametalman said:


> No, I just believe that most Americans wants to see the world on fire.


why stop at the world?


----------



## smf (May 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> You want to know why I didn't want Clinton to win? Because she supports that damned TPP bullshit, which would've royally screwed over so many people on the internet.



The same people that told you that TPP was bad for America and good for everyone else was telling everyone on the other side of the pond that the TPP was bad for us and good for America. It came down to it not being good for all of Trump and his rich buddies.

You royally got screwed.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 30, 2017)

smf said:


> The same people that told you that TPP was bad for America and good for everyone else was telling everyone on the other side of the pond that the TPP was bad for us and good for America. It came down to it not being good for all of Trump and his rich buddies.
> 
> You royally got screwed.



Think what you want, I just didn't want her to win, but whatever.


----------



## RevPokemon (May 31, 2017)

smf said:


> The same people that told you that TPP was bad for America and good for everyone else was telling everyone on the other side of the pond that the TPP was bad for us and good for America. It came down to it not being good for all of Trump and his rich buddies.
> 
> You royally got screwed.


Hillary losing was still a net-good in some respects as it lowers the Democratic Party's corporatist powers since it's main people have less power in the party now and people like Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress have a chance. Plus either way with Clinton, America was fucking  screwed with her...


----------



## grossaffe (May 31, 2017)

The way I see the Trump/Clinton thing is that Trump won't be able to accomplish most of the things he wants to do that I disagree with.  Clinton would have.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 31, 2017)

grossaffe said:


> The way I see the Trump/Clinton thing is that Trump won't be able to accomplish most of the things he wants to do that I disagree with.  Clinton would have.


He's also becoming exactly what he mocked Clinton for on the campaign trail


----------



## RevPokemon (May 31, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He's also becoming exactly what he mocked Clinton for on the campaign trail


But with Trump, he never really hid anything in some sense. Did he lie? Yes but he constantly would say something that makes you realize he is BSing. This is one of those times... But again, Clinton is guilty of this as well...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 31, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> But with Trump, he never really hid anything in some sense. Did he lie? Yes but he constantly would say something that makes you realize he is BSing. This is one of those times... But again, Clinton is guilty of this as well...


That... somehow doesn't make it any better


----------



## RevPokemon (May 31, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That... somehow doesn't make it any better


It is not supposed to. We have been so accustomed to Bullshitting that we think it is normal and acceptable behavior. Why else do we give passes to those who voted for Iraq who cry that "well we thought thought they had WMDs"


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (May 31, 2017)

I think the smartest thing to do on the subject of Trump's Russian is wait for the special prosecutor's decision. Not unlike the Clinton email investigation, liberals insist that Trump is Nixon 2.0, while conservatives push that he did nothing wrong. No one side or source will have the unfiltered truth, and they are all influenced by their opinion on Trump's policies. Meanwhile, former FBI Director Mueller, the special prosecutor, does not appear to have any conflicts of interest, and I do very much trust him, and our legal system, in its ability to reach a just conclusion. 

I think that a lot of do forget how good the American legal system is in terms of fishing out irregularities in top government officials. In my birth country, Argentina, a prosector set to testify on the (now former) President in Congress was shot the day before, with the death ruled a suicide. The government in the US would not be able to pull off something like that, because our bureaucrats really are decent people. Nor do I really believe that assassinating Mr. Mueller would ever cross Trump's mind. 

As far as how I personally think this will turn out, I'm not completely certain. I think Trump's lack of experience with politics definitely led him to to bring in some questionable people, and I do think that some of Trump's associates are guilty of illegal contacts. Whether Trump himself even knew is ambiguous, so that will be Mr. Mueller's biggest question.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 31, 2017)

Did you know that wikipedia is not politically neutral? A swiss Prof. called Ganser and many of his friends tried to change his article which claims that he is a conspiracy theorist, even though he has a PhD in history (for investigating NATO stay behind armies in Europe) because he dares to question the US government explanation for 9/11.

The alleged Russian interference is discussed in a huge article on wikipedia as well, but there is no talk of a conspiracy theory. There are anonymous users with higher ranks at wikipedia which edit articles and have to power to ban people.

The term is used to link real investigators to people who talk about Aliens building the pyramids and other nonsense so that the majority doesn't listen to them.
Conspiracies happen all the time. If you cheat on your wife it's conspiracy (you plus the other woman vs your wife) and if she finds lipstick on your body, it's a "conspiracy theory".


----------



## grossaffe (May 31, 2017)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Did you know that wikipedia is not politically neutral? A swiss Prof. called Ganser and many of his friends tried to change his article which claims that he is a conspiracy theorist, even though he has a PhD in history (for investigating NATO stay behind armies in Europe) because he dares to question the US government explanation for 9/11.


what an injustice.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (May 31, 2017)

I personally wouldn't mind being called a theorist of anything. But you can't deny it's used to silence people. Mass media is theorizing like crazy about a Russian conspiracy but rarely do I hear them being called conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 28, 2017)

The 'Russia this, Russia that' joke has gone a little far too long now. To think that people believe Russia had anything to do with it shows that it's incredibly easy to deceive humans into thinking what they want, oh wait... 1984.



This is one of the reasons I stopped trusting news on TV and newspaper, in general. You're better off double-checking news yourself on the web for its authenticity than to rely on a news outlet who preys on always the same kind of news and then you notice their pattern.

For example, there are some sick news outlet which love to describe bit by bit how a crime was committed and even show the actual body(ies) so that their ratings can be improved. No shame whatsoever. These people are cold, cold hearted.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 28, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The 'Russia this, Russia that' joke has gone a little far too long now. To think that people believe Russia had anything to do with it shows that it's incredibly easy to deceive humans into thinking what they want, oh wait... 1984.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See the thing I don't get is how two independent federal agencies can say there's evidence of tampering. I mean, even if it's being overstated/misreported, there HAS to be truth to it, right?...

And yes, I've listened to the Veritas recording, I think it's pretty disguisting that CNN higher-ups are trying to control the narrative with no tangible proof. I could understand it if they had sources they want to keep secret, but this just makes it sound like it's for their own pockets


----------



## Mark McDonut (Jun 28, 2017)

Politics are bullshit.

A big red asshole and a big blue asshole throwing our rights back and forth while we fight each other for it.

I fucking hate this world sometimes.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> See the thing I don't get is how two independent federal agencies can say there's evidence of tampering. I mean, even if it's being overstated/misreported, there HAS to be truth to it, right?...


It depends since historically it has a group of people who systematically and carefully know how to use manipulation to achieve its goals...




TotalInsanity4 said:


> And yes, I've listened to the Veritas recording, I think it's pretty disguisting that CNN higher-ups are trying to control the narrative with no tangible proof. I could understand it if they had sources they want to keep secret, but this just makes it sound like it's for their own pockets


All cable news is pure bullshit. Get your news online where it is better generally.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 28, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> All cable news is pure bullshit. Get your news online where it is better generally.


I'm going to have to disagree there; at least networked media is held to some semblance of a standard, whereas online media can easily be faked with no consequences to the individual writing it. Obviously corruption is a factor, but then it kind of is in anything, and has been since things with monetary value existed


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> See the thing I don't get is how two independent federal agencies can say there's evidence of tampering. I mean, even if it's being overstated/misreported, there HAS to be truth to it, right?...
> 
> And yes, I've listened to the Veritas recording, I think it's pretty disguisting that CNN higher-ups are trying to control the narrative with no tangible proof. I could understand it if they had sources they want to keep secret, but this just makes it sound like it's for their own pockets



Tampering with an election isn't that difficult in regards to certain aspects of said election. Ddos a server with a DNC/RNC mailing list, embed a virus into an attachment and send it to a community organizer, hell, beat up the local guy putting up the signs. You've just tampered with the election. What I'd like to see as proof, is actual digital proof of some sort. Not some BS, but stuff that cannot be overlooked by cryptographers and CS analysts.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm going to have to disagree there; at least networked media is held to some semblance of a standard, whereas online media can easily be faked with no consequences to the individual writing it. Obviously corruption is a factor, but then it kind of is in anything, and has been since things with monetary value existed


I'm referring to the intercept, reason, mises wire, jacobin, and local outlets which discuss much that the tv does not. I dare someone to find a cable news program better than the National Review (on the conservative side) or Jacobin (on the leftist side)


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jun 28, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm going to have to disagree there; at least networked media is held to some semblance of a standard, whereas online media can easily be faked with no consequences to the individual writing it. Obviously corruption is a factor, but then it kind of is in anything, and has been since things with monetary value existed


Nah, cable news doesn't have many standards, either. Look at CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. The bias is very apparent, and all of 'em do some sketch sh*t. The best thing you can do is look at a bunch of different articles from across the spectrum or find very trustable direct sources, like Reuters or AP. You can't trust any big establishment news corp.


----------



## Viri (Jun 28, 2017)

Honestly, you probably shouldn't be watching *any* cable news after that shit storm of an election. If you wanted proof of bias, you got an entire 2 years of it amped up to 20.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 28, 2017)

it only gets worse, cnn's own van jones says the russia story is just a "nothing burger"



liberals already yelling the same complaints, "it was taken out of context", "it was edited"


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 28, 2017)

Oh boy. More drama. Sighing.


----------



## Joedude1 (Jun 28, 2017)

My stance with anything connected to the internet is that its almost always  being attacked by hackers.  So why is it anything special if hacking attempts were made against voting machines?  I myself joked about trying to physically hack into voting machines because I noticed that my church was a polling place and they had some voting machines sitting in a room that I could access easily.


----------



## Eightcoins (Jun 28, 2017)

Why exactly do we still care about the election?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 28, 2017)

Eightcoins said:


> Why exactly do we still care about the election?


Because a relatively small percentage of the population actually likes the results


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Because a relatively small percentage of the population actually likes the results


It depends really as a very large if not the same amount would feel the same about Clinton. That is the issue people forget and to be honest it seems to me that it is one of the flaws that Democrats believe which (hopefully) will hurt them in 2018


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 29, 2017)

I love how _*It's all bullshit, the FBI and CIA are blatantly lying as ordered by the democrat government *_is the most voted option. If you think the FBI and CIA are left-biased, you're a fucking Trumpublican moron.



Foxi4 said:


> The majority of states voted Trump, and it is only fair that he became president


Except states aren't people and _states _shouldn't chose the president. The people should. _That's _a real democracy. Trump's dumbass army of nationalist fuckers seem to hate socialism and communism, but I guess that they don't care that a dictator Authoritarian motherfucker is (_trying_) to take over.

I still don't get why the right thinks they won. They won all three positions (Senate, Congress, Presidency) yet they still can't revoke LGBT rights, ObamaCare, initiate a Muslim ban, etc.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 29, 2017)

dpad_5678 said:


> Except states aren't people and _states _shouldn't chose the president. The people should. _That's _a real democracy.


Except it's not. It's a Constitutional Republic. Always has been. The States themselves are democracies.

Until the Democratic Party accepts the fact that many people feel that they're not being represented by mainstream Washington, they'll continue losing. Cruz, Kasich, Rubio and the like would've been a loss for Republicans. Sanders was the best candidate out of all running period, and they sandbagged him.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 29, 2017)

brickmii82 said:


> Sanders was the best candidate out of all running period, and they sandbagged him.


I agree. The Democrats fucked themselves hard by literally stealing any chance Bernie had at getting the Democratic nomination thinking that Hillary would be better to go up against Trump. Lmao.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 29, 2017)

Truth be told, I've conversed with many registered Democrat friends about this. 14 of them said they backed Sanders originally. 1 said Clinton, and he works for the DNC.....


----------



## Eightcoins (Jun 29, 2017)

Agree on the states thing.
In most of europe one person is one election vote and thats it.
And tbh,I feel like thats more fair.


----------



## erikas (Jun 29, 2017)

I come from a country that has been at odds with Russia pretty much forever. Russia also has more spies than any of you can imagine and Putin is very untrustworthy, you would not believe the kind of brainwashing done through the news every single day in Russia. Despite all this, no, the idea that Russia hacked the election is ridiculous, so far no proof has been presented, and from what i have gathered, this whole story comes from the claim that russian hackers are the ones, who leaked Hillary's emails. As the emails were confirmed to be real, their origin is irrelevant. This can hardly be called "hacking the election". They make it sound like russian hackers hacked into the computers that were counting votes.


----------



## 59672 (Jun 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Because a relatively small percentage of the population actually likes the results



Majority did when you remove the illegals. The thing is, it actually is a lot how trump said, there's a silent majority and a very vocal minority. Of course a vocal group also being the losers in the election is going to cause nothing but unending drama, even if it were instead under the best of circumstances.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 29, 2017)

dpad_5678 said:


> I still don't get why the right thinks they won. They won all three positions (Senate, Congress, Presidency) yet they still can't revoke LGBT rights, ObamaCare, initiate a Muslim ban, etc


Fwiw Truman went through the same thing since a faction of his party didn't want his changes


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

dpad_5678 said:


> I love how _*It's all bullshit, the FBI and CIA are blatantly lying as ordered by the democrat government *_is the most voted option. If you think the FBI and CIA are left-biased, you're a fucking Trumpublican moron.
> 
> 
> Except states aren't people and _states _shouldn't chose the president. The people should. _That's _a real democracy. Trump's dumbass army of nationalist fuckers seem to hate socialism and communism, but I guess that they don't care that a dictator Authoritarian motherfucker is (_trying_) to take over.
> ...


The reason why the electoral college exists is because the United States is a union of multiple states with their own representatives and legislative power which govern themselves, overseen by a federal government which is elected by said states to oversee the union. The United States are not a democracy, they're a Republic. You can't have states on each coast dictate the law to all of the states in-between the coasts because what's beneficial to coastal states may not be beneficial to mainland states - they have completely different economical, social and geopolitical woes. Just because the coastal states have a higher population doesn't mean that they get to choose what happens in mainland states. Take a look at the election map:




You must be joking if you think it'd be even remotely fair for Clinton to take the win - she lost in a landslide.


Eightcoins said:


> Agree on the states thing.
> In most of europe one person is one election vote and thats it.
> And tbh,I feel like thats more fair.


Except that's not the case. Think of the US in terms of the European Union - citizen states choose representatives *for their own government*, they get to choose who represents *them* in Brussels, however they have no influence on the legislature enacted *across the whole union* or who is going to represent *other states*, only the representatives do. It's the EU parliment that decides who will take the seat of the head of the parliment, not the citizens of the member states. It's not a 100% accurate analogy as the EU isn't an equivalent of the United States, but it shows the principle.


----------



## nIxx (Jun 29, 2017)

@Foxi4  I really don't care what's done is done but if most people dont or even better cant vote it doesnt help either  Add to that promises that sound good and you obviously can "easily" win a presidantial election.

And to the topic i think "somebody" tampered with the election but thats far away from what the mainstream media is talking about right now.
The real issue imo is that someone like Trump just dont want to hear anything about it or then his hilarious twitter rants (going so far to fire people because of it).
Why not just get over it and its fine (except he may know something that doesn't let him look good in the public ^^) instead intervening.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> See the thing I don't get is how two independent federal agencies can say there's evidence of tampering. I mean, even if it's being overstated/misreported, there HAS to be truth to it, right?...
> 
> And yes, I've listened to the Veritas recording, I think it's pretty disguisting that CNN higher-ups are trying to control the narrative with no tangible proof. I could understand it if they had sources they want to keep secret, but this just makes it sound like it's for their own pockets


Russia has become the one-all-to-blame country when anything goes wrong and it works because people actually believe everything bad that happens is due to Russia. It would be funny if it weren't so bad.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

nIxx said:


> @Foxi4  I really don't care what's done is done but if most people dont or even better cant vote it doesnt help either
> 
> And to the topic i think "somebody" tampered with the election but thats far away from what the mainstream media is talking about right now.
> The real issue imo is that someone like Trump just dont want to hear anything about it or then his hilarious twitter rants (going so far to fire people because of it).
> Why not just get over it and its fine (except he may know something that doesn't let him look good in the public ^^) instead intervening.


I'm pretty sure that the people who can't "get over it" are starting riots, looting and burning buildings, and it's not the Trump crowd doing that. It's BLM and ANTIFA who cause trouble under the guise of equality, social justice and anti-fascism, and by discriminatory, unjust and fascistic means at that.


Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Russia has become the one-all-to-blame country when anything goes wrong and it works because people actually believe everything bad that happens is due to Russia. It would be funny if it weren't so bad.


It's the Red Scare Round 2, easy scapegoat to blame for all of their own fuckery.


----------



## nIxx (Jun 29, 2017)

Dont exaggerate. Where are these Riots now !? 

Honestly most people dont even care  People have much more really personal problems as thinking about starting riots. We 1st World people still have it much better as many many other countries even if people here complain how everything sucks left and right ^^ Stuff like they take our jobs away, yeah right the jobs that many people dont even want to do but lets complain its to easy 

And even if you think russia is the scapegoat now nobody can deny that something is not right in general with russia (im not talking about hacking or such things).


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm pretty sure that the people who can't "get over it" are starting riots, looting and burning buildings, and it's not the Trump crowd doing that. It's BLM and ANTIFA who cause trouble under the guise of equality, social justice and anti-fascism, and by discriminatory, unjust and fascistic means at that.
> It's the Red Scare Round 2, easy scapegoat to blame for all of their own fuckery.



Groups like ANTIFA and other extremist riot groups can burn in hell for all I care. Unruly bastards, the lot of them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

nIxx said:


> Dont exaggerate. Where are these Riots now !?
> 
> Honestly most people dont even care  People have much more really personal problems as thinking about starting riots. We 1st people still have it much better as many many other countries even if people here complain how everything sucks left and right ^^ Stuff like they take our jobs away, yeah right the jobs that many people dont even want to do but lets complain


It's only been a month or two since Berkley, don't feign ignorance. As for Russia being suspicious, of course there's something wrong with it - it's ruled by an actual despot who changes the laws just to stay in power, with an active oligarchy structure and an influential mafia calling the shots. That's not democracy's fault though, it's the fault of socialism which got people used to the idea that bribery and connections are more important than the law and principle.

Just to drive the point of the majority versus the electoral college, there need to be protections against localised majorities speaking up against a more widespread population. If you're in a room with 10 other people and they start a vote to take all of your money because you have it and they don't, you vote against and they vote for, and then proceed to beat you up and take all of your money, that's a democratic result, but it doesn't make it right. If a white majority suddenly decides that they just want to kill all black people, that's democratic, which doesn't mean that it's not racist. The electoral college exists as a counterweight and protects the interests of the whole union so that no state with a particularly high population can throw its weight around, that's what differentiates a single country from a union of states with different interests, and it's necessary for such a union to exist.


----------



## nIxx (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> It's only been a month or two since Berkley, don't feign ignorance.


That wasnt a riot thought or ANTIFA or whatever  And since we are talking about the USA it's sadly something that can't happen anyway but thats another issue.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

nIxx said:


> That wasnt a riot thought or ANTIFA or whatever


So when peaceful protesters are attacked by ANTIFA with bottles filled with fireworks and the situation escalates to such a point that both sides start showing up in protective gear and makeshift weapons in hand in the event of an inevitable brawl, that's not a riot? Okay.

Guys, this is how "not a riot" looks like:


----------



## nIxx (Jun 29, 2017)

On protest anywhere you have some people that only attend protest or whatever to just create chaos.
So while im not a "fan" of the ANTIFA you should at least make a difference because not everybody agrees with people that use violence .
It's basically like saying Muslims want to kill everybody else or saying all republicans/liberals are bad people.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 29, 2017)

59672 said:


> Majority did when you remove the illegals. The thing is, it actually is a lot how trump said, there's a silent majority and a very vocal minority. Of course a vocal group also being the losers in the election is going to cause nothing but unending drama, even if it were instead under the best of circumstances.


I'm confused as to how anyone can even claim to know how many undocumented immigrants would have voted for what side, and why you think a significant amount of them are participating in current polls, since I was talking about approval ratings


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

nIxx said:


> On protest anywhere you have some people that only attend protest or whatever to just create chaos.
> So while im not a "fan" of the ANTIFA you should at least make a difference because not everybody agrees with people that use violence .
> It's basically like saying Muslims want to kill everybody else.


Y'know what? When a group encourages people to dress up in black from head to toes in black, wear masks, throw explosives at people, beat them up and attack them with mace because they "disagree with them", that's fascism. The "not all Muslims" excuse doesn't fly here - ANTIFA exists *for the purposes of* causing chaos, and that's exactly what they do, so they're all bad. Dressing up their violence in a lofty statement of "opposing fascism" is no different than any other crime under the guise of good will.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 29, 2017)

Eightcoins said:


> Why exactly do we still care about the election?



Yeah. I do not care about the election. I just wish this thread would closed. Its annoying.


----------



## nIxx (Jun 29, 2017)

The whole point was not all ANTIFA people are like that or replace ANTIFA with any other group 
And their purpose when the "movement" started definitly wasnt to create chaos but some people like in every group someday think then maybe we dont go far enough.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 29, 2017)

WE NEED A RUSSIAN SNOWDEN!!!!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

nIxx said:


> The whole point was not all ANTIFA people are like that or replace ANTIFA with any other group


I'm sure not all Nazis hated Jews, but they still shoved them into gas chambers for being Jews because an authority told them to do so, so they're all guilty. We went through this in Norymbourg - that defense doesn't fly.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2017)

Oh boy.



Foxi4 said:


> The reason why the electoral college exists is because the United States is a union of multiple states with their own representatives and legislative power which govern themselves, overseen by a federal government which is elected by said states to oversee the union.


That's not the historical reason why the Electoral College exists. The Electoral College exists in part because slave states felt underrepresented otherwise.



Foxi4 said:


> The United States are not a democracy, they're a Republic.


No, the United States is a Democratic-Republic.
Edit: This also has no bearing on how the presidential election should work.



Foxi4 said:


> Just because the coastal states have a higher population doesn't mean that they get to choose what happens in mainland states.


Nobody's arguing that. What people are arguing is that, when it comes to a general election of the whole country, the only fair way to do it is a direct election. Nobody's vote should be worth more than another's.



Foxi4 said:


> Take a look at the election map:
> 
> You must be joking if you think it'd be even remotely fair for Clinton to take the win - she lost in a landslide.


Now you're just trying to be misleading, finding the map that best supports the idea that Trump won in a landslide. In reality, most of the counties on that map have relatively very few people, and to frame the election results that way is arbitrary. It also doesn't show what the margins of victory were. This map does a better job at showing the results of the election, including margin of victory and population:


Spoiler










In reality, Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes but lost the Electoral College because of an arbitrary group of about 191,000 voters.

I'm not arguing that Clinton should have won the election. We all knew the rules of the Electoral College, and I wouldn't favor changing the rules retroactively after the results. I am, however, arguing that the Electoral College should not exist. It disparages millions of voters, and it keeps millions more from participating in the process.


----------



## Eightcoins (Jun 29, 2017)

nIxx said:


> The whole point was not all ANTIFA people are like that or replace ANTIFA with any other group


Anarchist groups usually are up to no good tho.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Oh boy.
> 
> 
> That's not the historical reason why the Electoral College exists. The Electoral College exists in part because slave states felt underrepresented otherwise.
> ...


I picked the first election map by county that showed up on Google and wasn't in dogshit resolution, I've *never* seen the bizzare Picasso painting you're touting as evidence. If your only points are "muh slave states" and a gotcha of "it's not a Republic, it's a DEMOCRATIC Republic" then I'll end the exchange here because it has no substance.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 29, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Oh boy.
> 
> 
> That's not the historical reason why the Electoral College exists. The Electoral College exists in part because slave states felt underrepresented otherwise.
> ...


The legend returns! Good to see ya debating again friend!


----------



## Reyn_the_Insane (Jun 29, 2017)

My view on it, I don't really think so, although it could've been possible. However, I do think most of Hillary's overvotes came from illegal aliens.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I picked the first election map by county that showed up on Google and wasn't in dogshit resolution, I've *never* seen the bizzare Picasso painting you're touting as evidence. If your only points are "muh slave states" and a gotcha of "it's not a Republic, it's a DEMOCRATIC Republic" then I'll end the exchange here because it has no substance.


The "Picasso map" is meant to show (roughly) what individuals voted where, without gerrymandered districts influencing it

Edit: here


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The "Picasso map" is meant to show (roughly) what individuals voted where, without gerrymandered districts influencing it


I know what it shows - it shows straws that the dems grasp at to cheer themselves up. Did the county vote A or B? Red or Blue? Onto the map. Most are Red? Okay. No need to muddle it with nonsense.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I know what it shows - it shows straws that the dems grasp at to cheer themselves up. Did the county vote A or B? Red or Blue? Onto the map. Most are Red? Okay. No need to muddle it with nonsense.


See my edit


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> See my edit


I already explained why I care so little. 5 Starbucks employees from NY can't tell 1 farmer from Texas what to do with his farm, their state doesn't rely on farming, they don't know shit. Anywho, ideally federal government should have as little power as possible anyways, most things should be decided on a state level, with the federal government concerning itself only with international relations and the overall direction for the Union. Since that's not the case, checks and balances were implemented.

Don't worry though, Americans have 7 years to groom the next Democratic candidate that won't be embarrassing. Just pick some younger guy, since Bernie will either be dead or in prison by then. Funny how people who like to share other people's money have an inclination towards financial fuckery - topical, considering Sanders' recent legal trouble.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I already explained why I care so little. 5 Starbucks employees from NY can't tell 1 farmer from Texas what to do with his farm, their state doesn't rely on farming, they don't know shit.


You're right, but currently that one farmer is trying to tell those five Starbucks employees how to do their jobs, under your analogy


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You're right, but currently that one farmer is trying to tell those five Starbucks employees how to do their jobs, under your analogy


All the college did was equalise the chances of the two groups to have their say, nothing more.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I picked the first election map by county that showed up on Google and wasn't in dogshit resolution, I've *never* seen the bizzare Picasso painting you're touting as evidence. If your only points are "muh slave states" and a gotcha of "it's not a Republic, it's a DEMOCRATIC Republic" then I'll end the exchange here because it has no substance.


Look, I understand why you don't want to continue to argue that the Electoral College system is fair, because it's barely a defensible position. But, here are the facts:

The Electoral College was not created, like you argued, because we're any sort of republic. The Electoral College was created in part because slave states didn't like a direct election of the president by popular vote due to their high populations but low number of voters, and some felt that a direct election of the president was too hard for everybody. To say these points lack substance is to demonstrate that you don't care about having a genuine conversation about the Electoral College. If you want to criticize a hypothetically fair election for president by popular vote so you can defend an arbitrary and racist Electoral College because it yielded the result you wanted last year, great, but a rebuttal doesn't lack substance just because you don't like it.
I really don't blame you though. The United States is generally Democratic (with a capital D). If I favored conservatism, I would have an erection for the Electoral College too. Afterall, a non-incumbent Republican candidate for president hasn't won the popular vote since 1988.
Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. To argue for the Electoral College is to argue that a relatively low number of votes are somehow worth more than those 3 million votes because of where they lived.
Everybody knew the rules of the Electoral College, and Secretary Clinton lost in part because of a bad campaign that didn't do enough in the right states.



Foxi4 said:


> I know what it shows - it shows straws that the dems grasp at to cheer themselves up. Did the county vote A or B? Red or Blue? Onto the map. Most are Red? Okay. No need to muddle it with nonsense.


It shows that, without the Electoral College, Secretary Clinton clearly won the election. I don't care what a bunch of counties with populations of less than 800 people each voted for relative to how the whole country voted. I could easily draw arbitrary lines in a way that shows much more blue. I could also draw no lines and show a country map that's entirely blue, since that's how the country voted.



Foxi4 said:


> I already explained why I care so little. 5 Starbucks employees from NY can't tell 1 farmer from Texas what to do with his farm, their state doesn't rely on farming, they don't know shit. Anywho, ideally federal government should have as little power as possible anyways, most things should be decided on a state level, with the federal government concerning itself only with international relations and the overall direction for the Union. Since that's not the case, checks and balances were implemented.


Your analogy is flawed. We're not talking about voters in New York choosing the senators from Texas; we're talking about a countywide election.



Foxi4 said:


> Anywho, ideally federal government should have as little power as possible anyways, most things should be decided on a state level, with the federal government concerning itself only with international relations and the overall direction for the Union.


Whether or not we agree on this is irrelevant to the conversation.



Foxi4 said:


> Since that's not the case, checks and balances were implemented.


The Separation of Powers has nothing to do with the Electoral College.



Foxi4 said:


> Don't worry though, Americans have 7 years to groom the next Democratic candidate that won't be embarrassing.


We have presidential elections every four years, not every eight years.



Foxi4 said:


> All the college did was equalise the chances of the two groups to have their say, nothing more.


No, the Electoral College throws a wrench into an otherwise fair election by popular vote. Equalization occurs when each person is given one vote. The Electoral College gives more weight to some voters than others based on where they live. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around 3 million votes, but a few metaphorical farmers got to dictate policy for the rest of the country because of where they lived, even though most of the country disagrees.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Look, I understand why you don't want to continue to argue that the Electoral College system is fair, because it's barely a defensible position. But, here are the facts:
> 
> The Electoral College was not created, like you argued, because we're any sort of republic. The Electoral College was created in part because slave states didn't like a direct election of the president by popular vote due to their high populations but low number of voters, and some felt that a direct election of the president was too hard for everybody. To say these points lack substance is to demonstrate that you don't care about having a genuine conversation about the Electoral College. If you want to criticize a hypothetically fair election for president by popular vote so you can defend an arbitrary and racist Electoral College because it yielded the result you wanted last year, great, but a rebuttal doesn't lack substance just because you don't like it.
> I really don't blame you though. The United States is generally Democratic (with a capital D). If I favored conservatism, I would have an erection for the Electoral College too. Afterall, a non-incumbent Republican candidate for president hasn't won the popular vote since 1988.
> ...


Since our positions on this are diametrically opposed, there's no point in me addressing your points - there's no exchange of ideas occurring, just a presentation of stances, and that's not interesting to me - I know what you stand for, and I hate most of it. I'm sure you're a good person, most people are generally good, however we have a different preference of means to achieve goals. As for the election cycle, I'm well-aware that you hold elections every 4 years, I'm telling you to brace for impact. Back before the election you said that the polls indicate that Clinton has a +/-95% chance of winning the election, to which I responded that Trump is going to win, and I was correct. Now I'm telling you that he's going to win second term, and the only thing that can save you from it is him getting bored of being POTUS and not running. You're in for 8 years of Trump, start grooming a candidate now, or else you just won't have a good one when the time comes.


----------



## Viri (Jun 29, 2017)

Lacius said:


> We have presidential elections every four years, not every eight years.





Spoiler


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

While we're on the subject of the Electoral College being a racist invention and a wrench in the cogs of democracy, Democrats only recently started to speak against it - back in 2008 they all wholeheartedly defended it because they thought it behooved their candidate:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/04/uselections2008.usa

You stonewalled a Republican movement to reform it because you thought it'd cost you the seat of POTUS, that's your beer, you brewed it yourselves. Now drink it.

It's clearly not a principle of the party if you keep changing your mind about it - either it's democratic or it's not, it can't be "democratic, but only when it serves us". Republicans don't have that issue, they don't represent a democratic stance - you do. You're like a a blade of grass - you bend to whatever gust of wind comes along. Trump was the mower.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> While we're on the subject of the Electoral College being a racist invention and a wrench in the cogs of democracy, Democrats only recently started to speak against it - back in 2008 they all wholeheartedly defended it because they thought it behooved their candidate:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/04/uselections2008.usa
> 
> You stonewalled a Republican movement to reform it because you thought it'd cost you the seat of POTUS, that's your beer, you brew it yourselves. Now drink it.


I can't tell if you actually read the articles that you post as opposed to just skimming them after looking at the headlines, or if you just don't understand what they're saying from the opposite side of the political spectrum, because...


			
				that Guardian article said:
			
		

> The Republicans are proposing that instead of all the electoral votes going to the winner, the 55 votes be allocated on a Congressional district basis, which would give the Republicans around 20, almost certainly enough to secure the White House.


...that is not fair in the slightest. What the Republicans were effectively trying to do was set up voting districts in a way that they could poll citizens based on location, then deliberately draw Congressional districts in a way that would ensure they win the election


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I can't tell if you actually read the articles that you post as opposed to just skimming them after looking at the headlines, or if you just don't understand what they're saying from the opposite side of the political spectrum, because...
> 
> ...that is not fair in the slightest. What the Republicans were effectively trying to do was set up voting districts in a way that they could poll citizens based on location, then deliberately draw Congressional districts in a way that would ensure they win the election


Oh boy. Republicans trying to implement smaller government and allowing smaller voting districts to let smaller groups be heard? Someone stop the presses, the Republicans are trying to enact their primary party goals!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Since our positions on this are diametrically opposed, there's no point in me addressing your points - there's no exchange of ideas occurring, just a presentation of stances, and that's not interesting to me - I know what you stand for, and I hate most of it. I'm sure you're a good person, most people are generally good, however we have a different preference of means to achieve goals. As for the election cycle, I'm well-aware that you hold elections every 4 years, I'm telling you to brace for impact. Back before the election you said that the polls indicate that Clinton has a +/-95% chance of winning the election, to which I responded that Trump is going to win, and I was correct. Now I'm telling you that he's going to win second term, and the only thing that can save you from it is him getting bored of being POTUS and not running. You're in for 8 years of Trump, start grooming a candidate now, or else you just won't have a good one when the time comes.


This is why I don't like talking to you; you're disingenuous and misrepresent positions. Near the end of the campaign, I acknowledged a roughly 70% chance of Clinton winning, which gave Trump better odds than flipping a coin heads twice in a row. If, as you claim, you said Trump was going to win, you had no way of knowing that for sure. Considering the upset of the win and the razor-thin margin he won the Electoral College by, it definitely wasn't the sound position to take at the time.

Both Clinton and Trump had toxic poll numbers during the campaign. In other words, Trump ran against probably the only Democrat he could beat, and Clinton ran against probably the only Republican she could beat. Trump's numbers are even more toxic now, so if the Democrats run someone with decent numbers four years from now, he's probably not going to win. Obviously, a lot can happen between now and then, and it's too early to make actual predictions. Given these facts, when you say Trump is going to win in four years, you sound less like a prognosticator and more like a troll.



Foxi4 said:


> While we're on the subject of the Electoral College being a racist invention and a wrench in the cogs of democracy, Democrats only recently started to speak against it - back in 2008 they all wholeheartedly defended it because they thought it behooved their candidate:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/04/uselections2008.usa
> 
> ...


You have no idea what you're talking about. Did you even read the article, or did you Google something you wanted to assert, read the title, and then post it here to prove a point? Again, you're one of the most disingenuous people I've talked to here.

The Republicans in California were pushing to arbitrarily allocate electoral votes by congressional district in that state alone in order to divide the heavily blue California electoral votes and give Republicans an edge nationwide, while simultaneously leaving alone the Electoral College system in other (red) states. It would be like the Democrats trying to allocate the 38 electoral votes of Texas by congressional district, making it so 19 or so of those electoral votes go blue while the rest of the nation stays the same. In other words, it's not a repeal of the Electoral College system; it's a manipulation of it for political gain. In addition, none of this gets into the arbitrary nature of redistricting and gerrymandering that could also be used to manipulate such a system.

Also, if there had been a nationwide movement by Republicans to actually get rid of the Electoral College, and the Democrats opposed it, I would say, "So what?" I'm still for getting rid of the Electoral College, and my points would still stand.



Foxi4 said:


> Oh boy. Republicans trying to implement smaller government and allowing smaller voting districts to let smaller groups be heard? Someone stop the presses, the Republicans are trying to enact their primary party goals!


Rigging the system since a majority of the country disagrees with them on almost all policy positions?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

@Lacius, I never suggested that the Republicans wanted to repeal the Electoral College system, but if someone's being disingenuous, it's you. The Electoral College wasn't established because of "muh slave states", it was a consensus established during the Constitutional Convention to reconciliate State and Federal interests. The two sides of the political debate in the United States are and always have been clashing on one field and one field only - State vs. Federal government. One side wanted the President to be elected by a direct popular election, as you suggest is just, while the other wanted a more streamlined system of choosing the president by the already elected representatives, for instance the governors or the Congress itself. The Electoral College was a solution accepted by an overwhelming majority as a good compromise - it kept the position of POTUS independent from the Congress, kept the element of a popular election intact, gave less populous states some leverage to ensure that they're heard as well. It was a point of mutual understanding between the parties, not a trick of a Republican fairy, and I'm sure you know that. As for the article I posted, this is just one of the recent instances of Democrats defending the Electoral College when it was convenient to them. Allowing for smaller districts to have a more decisive say nationwide would've tilted the scales in your favour this election season, at least on first glance, I'd have to run the numbers to establish that, but I suppose it wasn't a perfect example - not that I'm particularly bothered. It's funny that Democrats seem to be in favour of majority rule now, I thought that the whole Democrat shtick in recent years was minority rights. The whole image of the party is muddled, I really don't know if Democrats themselves know what they want. The way your party operates is riddled with contradictions. As for the reason why talking to me frustrates you, I presume that it's because I do what I do for entertainment whereas you try to prove a point.


----------



## Viri (Jun 29, 2017)

Spoiler











A reminder that this guy ran Hillary's campaign.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius, I never suggested that the Republicans wanted to repeal the Electoral College system, but if someone's being disingenuous, it's you. The Electoral College wasn't established because of "muh slave states", it was a consensus established during the Constitutional Convention to reconciliate State and Federal interests. The two sides of the political debate in the United States are and always have been clashing on one field and one field only - State vs. Federal government. One side wanted the President to be elected by a direct popular election, as you suggest is just, while the other wanted a more streamlined system of choosing the president by the already elected representatives, for instance the governors or the Congress itself. The Electoral College was a solution accepted by an overwhelming majority as a good compromise - it kept the position of POTUS independent from the Congress, kept the element of a popular election intact, gave less populous states some leverage to ensure that they're heard as well.


... ish... the reasons that are commonly attributed are
a) the original Constitutional Convention thought that it would be impossible for anyone to know enough about Presidential candidates outside of their own local area due to slow passage of news, which would lead people to vote simply for the most popular/well-known person (ironic, considering the 2016 election), and
b) that, among other reasons at the time, a "popular vote" would be incredibly inefficient, considering that all transmission of documents at the time was done by horse

Neither of which are applicable anymore, given that we have the internet and a centralized and secure postal system now.


Foxi4 said:


> It was a point of mutual understanding between the parties, not a trick of a Republican fairy, and I'm sure you know that.


There's no way that you don't know that's _not_ what we're saying, right?... 


Foxi4 said:


> As for the article I posted, this is just one of the recent instances of Democrats defending the Electoral College when it was convenient to them. Allowing for smaller districts to have a more decisive say nationwide would've tilted the scales in your favour this election season, but I suppose it wasn't a perfect example - not that I'm particularly bothered.


That's fair, I mean political parties are always going to do what's in their own best interests. That doesn't exactly enhance or detract from anyone's argument, though, all that @Lacius and I are asking is that you actually read/understand the articles you cite from our perspective as well, as opposed to just throwing the first Google result that has a headline that fits your narrative into the conversation. 


Foxi4 said:


> It's funny that Democrats seem to be in favour of majority rule now, I thought that the whole Democrat shtick in recent years was minority rights. The whole image of the party is muddled, I really don't know if Democrats themselves know what they want. The way your party operates is riddled with contradictions.


The "Democrat shtick" is a level playing field for all; egalitarianism, if you will. Minority rights is a part of that, and would be enhanced by a popular vote vs. the electoral college. I don't understand exactly why you're trying to make the argument that it would do anything else, unless you just thought that the "majority/minority" wordplay was funny and was hoping it would stick as an insult, or something?...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Viri said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It would be easier to read if it wasn't splattered in memes


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius, I never suggested that the Republicans wanted to repeal the Electoral College system, but if someone's being disingenuous, it's you. The Electoral College wasn't established because of "muh slave states", it was a consensus established during the Constitutional Convention to reconciliate State and Federal interests. The two sides of the political debate in the United States are and always have been clashing on one field and one field only - State vs. Federal government. One side wanted the President to be elected by a direct popular election, as you suggest is just, while the other wanted a more streamlined system of choosing the president by the already elected representatives, for instance the governors or the Congress itself. The Electoral College was a solution accepted by an overwhelming majority as a good compromise - it kept the position of POTUS independent from the Congress, kept the element of a popular election intact, gave less populous states some leverage to ensure that they're heard as well. It was a point of mutual understanding between the parties, not a trick of a Republican fairy, and I'm sure you know that.


You can disparage the "muh slave states" argument all you want, but it's what happened. It's like you haven't even read James Madison's contemporaneous account on the subject:


> There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.


That's why the Electoral College exists. You can tout the "muh states' rights" argument all you want, and that might even be what conservatives retroactively use to defend the Electoral College now that it's benefiting them, but don't pretend it's the historic reason why the Electoral College exists. It's embarrassing, since we have contemporaneous accounts of what happened.

Also, childishly putting "muh" before someone's argument doesn't invalidate it.



Foxi4 said:


> As for the article I posted, this is just one of the recent instances of Democrats defending the Electoral College when it was convenient to them. Allowing for smaller districts to have a more decisive say nationwide would've tilted the scales in your favour this election season, but I suppose it wasn't a perfect example - not that I'm particularly bothered.


You should have seen that the Democrats weren't defending the Electoral College. Here's an excerpt from your own article, since you didn't bother to read it:


> "It is a terrible idea," he said. It would produce a partisan shift in only one state. To work fairly, it would have to be introduced in at least a few large states and, preferably, nationwide.


Just stop. Read your own articles.

Arbitrarily dividing the electoral votes in one state but not in others gives one party an overwhelming advantage, depending on the state. I've explained how this works above using my California and Texas examples. I'm overwhelmingly against the existence of the Electoral College, and I'm overwhelmingly against what the Republicans were trying to do in California. If you don't understand how that's not contradictory, you need to reread my posts. I don't know how else to put it.

I also don't care if there has been inconsistency on this. There are instances of Democrats trying to pick up electoral votes in other states using dirty practices like what was proposed in California. That's bad. There are sleezy politicians on both sides. What's your point? It doesn't invalidate my argument against the Electoral College. I'm not them.



Foxi4 said:


> It's funny that Democrats seem to be in favour of majority rule now, I thought that the whole Democrat shtick in recent years was minority rights.


There are historical examples of majority rule being used to oppress minorities. In other words, direct democracy, when it comes to minority rights, doesn't always work. For example, same-sex marriage was opposed by a majority of people in a lot of states during the 2004 election, but that doesn't mean same-sex couples didn't deserve marriage rights.

In other words, minorities have certain rights despite what the majority says, but that doesn't mean minorities should have the right to violate other people's rights. A plurality of people believe Hillary Clinton should be President. Ignoring hypothetical runoff voting systems, there is no such thing as a fair system that doesn't result in her becoming President.



Foxi4 said:


> The whole image of the party is muddled, I really don't know if Democrats themselves know what they want. The way your party operates is riddled with contradictions.


I don't speak for the Democratic Party, but I've been pretty clear and consistent about what I want.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2017)

Lacius said:


> You can disparage the "muh slave states" argument all you want, but it's what happened. It's like you haven't even read James Madison's contemporaneous account on the subject:
> 
> That's why the Electoral College exists. You can tout the "muh states' rights" argument all you want, and that might even be what conservatives retroactively use to defend the Electoral College now that it's benefiting them, but don't pretend it's the historic reason why the Electoral College exists. It's embarrassing, since we have contemporaneous accounts of what happened.
> 
> ...


It's like you didn't read my post at all, nevermind the article. What I actually said was that if such a division system was implemented nationwide, Democrats would have a huge advantage, on account of all the segregated minority neighbourhoods that they themselves built back during the Jim Crow years and beyond by lumping poor with the poor and minorities with minorities, creating pockets of perpetual poverty. Those neighbourhoods are numerous, they're present nation-wide and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat since the Republican party was advertised to them as "the racist party". I never advocated applying the rule just in Cali, I was talking about applying it nationwide, which you conveniently omitted, choosing to focus on the article instead since you fancied beating a strawman. You're treating flavour text as *my* argument - it's not, it was merely an example of Democrats opposing any change in the present system. If they want to dismantle the Electoral College, they're more than welcome to try, however it is one of the pillars of the federal system specifically placed there to oppose mob rule. Outdated? Yes. Effective? Certainly - we saw it this election cycle.

As for your division of what's a minority and a majority interest, I think it's completely arbitrary and based on an equally arbitrary moral code. The only interest I am concerned with is the interest of an individual, I don't like focusing on groups, hence my preference of small, local governments. Take marriage, for instance - that's a talking point that we're on completely opposite poles on. You believe that marriage is a human right and that everybody is entitled to marry should they wish to do so. I think the opposite - I think marriage as a legal institution is an invasion of the state into the lives of private citizens and it should be completely dismantled. The state has no interest in who goes to bed with whom and why. Across the years marriage was used as a quick solution to solve inheritance issues and disputes over land, it was also used by the government to promote higher birth rates by giving marriages certain rights and tax cuts based solely on the premise that married couples intend to procreate. I have several gripes with that - firstly, as far as inheritance, visitation rights, residency etc. are concerned, notaries exist for a reason and all of those issues can be sorted out outside of a marriage. On the second point, I don't think it's even remotely fair to give two people benefits because they sleep with eachother at the cost of one person who doesn't have a partner, not to mention that the procreation aspect completely excludes homosexual couples. The whole idea seems even more dated than the Electoral College, but we've been perpetuating it for millenia simply because it's romanticised. You want to make it legal for everyone, I don't want it to be legal for anyone, because it's not a legal issue to begin with. The idea of inviting the state into a union between two people to get a stamp of approval seems disgusting to me, and if such a relationship wants to proclaim their love to the world, they can just do it in their backyard at a BBQ, that doesn't mean that they're not individuals and that they should get special treatment. When two people sign a document that entails their financial cooperation, that's not a relationship - at that point it's a corporation. A bit of a rant, but it demonstrates that we're not only on very different fields on such matters, we're on different stadiums altogether, carrying different balls, so our little debates will never be particularly fruitful.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> ... ish... the reasons that are commonly attributed are
> a) the original Constitutional Convention thought that it would be impossible for anyone to know enough about Presidential candidates outside of their own local area due to slow passage of news, which would lead people to vote simply for the most popular/well-known person (ironic, considering the 2016 election), and
> b) that, among other reasons at the time, a "popular vote" would be incredibly inefficient, considering that all transmission of documents at the time was done by horse
> 
> ...


Oh, good. I'm against a completely egalitarian society, so my opposition is well-placed then. There are many very different kinds of equality - I advocate for equality under the law, I lean on the side of equal opportunity as long as it doesn't entail Affirmative Action, but I draw the line at equality of outcome. I'd like to live in a world where the law applies to everyone equally and nobody gets special treatment as an individual - people should rise and fall on their own merit. That's not the Democratic definition of equality, therefore it's equality that I cannot stomach. The idea of the government taking something from me and giving it to my neighbour because I have it and he doesn't seems invasive to me - I worked for everything I own, I contribute to society enough through participating in it via my labour and my custom, I shouldn't be burdened with having to pay for the inadequacy of others while I'm at it.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> It's like you didn't read my post at all, nevermind the article. What I actually said was that if such a division system was implemented nationwide, Democrats would have a huge advantage, on account of all the segregated minority neighbourhoods that they themselves built back during the Jim Crow years and beyond by lumping poor with the poor and minorities with minorities, creating pockets of perpetual poverty. Those neighbourhoods are numerous, they're present nation-wide and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat since the Republican party was advertised to them as "the racist party".


Distributing electoral votes by congressional district is arbitrary. Considering how gerrymandered the congressional districts are, it's also idiotic to distribute electoral votes that way.

Everything you're arguing for is arbitrary. Why stop at congressional district? Why not tally electoral votes by county? Why not tally electoral votes by neighborhood? Why not tally electoral votes by household? *Why not tally electoral votes by individual? *That latter one is the fairest.



Foxi4 said:


> I never advocated applying the rule just in Cali


The Republicans in your article did. That's what I was addressing. This wasn't unclear.



Foxi4 said:


> I was talking about applying it nationwide, which you conveniently omitted, choosing to focus on the article instead since you fancied beating a strawman.


That's not an argument you made, so I wasn't able to respond to it. I'll respond to it now though; that's a terrible idea. Congressional districts are terribly gerrymandered, and the whole thing is arbitrary. See above.

I will agree with you that doing it in all of the states is less arbitrary than only doing it in some states. The process is still arbitrary though.



Foxi4 said:


> You're treating flavour text as *my* argument - it's not, it was merely an example of Democrats opposing any change in the present system.


If you're going to conflate opposing _any_ _change _with opposing _a very specific change_, then you're more disingenuous than I thought.



Foxi4 said:


> If they want to dismantle the Electoral College, they're more than welcome to try, however it is one of the pillars of the federal system specifically placed there to oppose mob rule. Outdated? Yes. Effective? Certainly - we saw it this election cycle.


As I've already mentioned several times now, the Electoral College was not a pillar of a federal system, and it was not specifically placed there to "oppose mob rule." It was placed there as a compromise in part so slave states would be happy. A position that's defended with nonsense is probably itself nonsense.

As for whether or not the Electoral College is effective, we have to define what it's effective at. If you want to say that the Electoral College is effective at throwing a presidential election into chaos and placing more of an emphasis on chance rather than voters, then I agree that it's effective at that.

If you want to say the Electoral College is effective at reflecting the will of the people, I would wholeheartedly disagree.



Foxi4 said:


> As for your division of what's a minority and a majority interest, I think it's completely arbitrary and based on an equally arbitrary moral code. The only interest I am concerned with is the interest of an individual, I don't like focusing on groups, hence my preference of small, local governments. Take marriage, for instance - that's a talking point that we're on completely opposite poles on. You believe that marriage is a human right and that everybody is entitled to marry should they wish to do so. I think the opposite - I think marriage as a legal institution is an invasion of the state into the lives of private citizens and it should be completely dismantled. The state has no interest in who goes to bed with whom and why. Across the years marriage was used as a quick solution to solve inheritance issues and disputes over land, it was also used by the government to promote higher birth rates by giving marriages certain rights and tax cuts based solely on the premise that married couples intend to procreate. I have several gripes with that - firstly, as far as inheritance, visitation rights, residency etc. are concerned, notaries exist for a reason and all of those issues can be sorted out outside of a marriage. On the second point, I don't think it's even remotely fair to give two people benefits because they sleep with eachother at the cost of one person who doesn't have a partner, not to mention that the procreation aspect completely excludes homosexual couples. The whole idea seems even more dated than the Electoral College, but we've been perpetuating it for millenia simply because it's romanticised. You want to make it legal for everyone, I don't want it to be legal for anyone, because it's not a legal issue to begin with. The idea of inviting the state into a union between two people to get a stamp of approval seems disgusting to me, and if such a relationship wants to proclaim their love to the world, they can just do it in their backyard at a BBQ, that doesn't mean that they're not individuals and that they should get special treatment. When two people sign a document that entails their financial cooperation, that's not a relationship - at that point it's a corporation. A bit of a rant, but it demonstrates that we're not only on very different fields on such matters, we're on different stadiums altogether, carrying different balls, so our little debates will never be particularly fruitful.


I'm not going to rehash old arguments we've had. Since legal marriage does exist, should people have equal access to it? Saying "nobody should have it" doesn't answer the question.



Foxi4 said:


> Oh, good. I'm against a completely egalitarian society, so my opposition is well-placed then. There are many very different kinds of equality - I advocate for equality under the law, I lean on the side of equal opportunity as long as it doesn't entail Affirmative Action, but I draw the line at equality of outcome. I'd like to live in a world where the law applies to everyone equally and nobody gets special treatment as an individual - people should rise and fall on their own merit. That's not the Democratic definition of equality, therefore it's equality that I cannot stomach. The idea of the government taking something from me and giving it to my neighbour because I have it and he doesn't seems invasive to me - I worked for everything I own, I contribute to society enough through participating in it via my labour and my custom, I shouldn't be burdened with having to pay for the inadequacy of others while I'm at it.


What about when people are disadvantaged relative to you due to an immutable characteristic? In other words, if a person can't rise and fall the same as you despite equal work and equal merit, what should be done (if anything)? If nothing, what can be said about the type of society that you want to live in?

Edit: Pardon the edit, but I do hope I've helped you to see the contradiction between your belief and your view on policy. If you can't find it, please let me know.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 30, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, good. I'm against a completely egalitarian society, so my opposition is well-placed then. There are many very different kinds of equality - I advocate for equality under the law, I lean on the side of equal opportunity as long as it doesn't entail Affirmative Action, but I draw the line at equality of outcome. I'd like to live in a world where the law applies to everyone equally and nobody gets special treatment as an individual - people should rise and fall on their own merit. That's not the Democratic definition of equality, therefore it's equality that I cannot stomach. The idea of the government taking something from me and giving it to my neighbour because I have it and he doesn't seems invasive to me - I worked for everything I own, I contribute to society enough through participating in it via my labour and my custom, I shouldn't be burdened with having to pay for the inadequacy of others while I'm at it.


"It's like you didn't read my post at all"

And, if we're going to start discussing a tangent that I made offhand as opposed to staying on the topic we're currently discussing, what makes you think your neighbor _isn't _contributing to society as much as you are? Disadvantaged people don't always get there because of laziness or lack of motivation, there are many factors. And if that person needs a tiny, tiny percentage of my net worth to help get back on their feet, I see no reason why I shouldn't give back to society in that way. Besides, paying taxes gets me a lot of "exclusive citizen benefits," like the ability to use publicly funded freeways, parks, and county/state buildings, for example. I even get a guarantee to decently-priced healthcare through my family's employment, although that may not be the case for very much longer


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 30, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Distributing electoral votes by congressional district is arbitrary. Considering how gerrymandered the congressional districts are, it's also idiotic to distribute electoral votes that way.
> 
> Everything you're arguing for is arbitrary. Why stop at congressional district? Why not tally electoral votes by county? Why not tally electoral votes by neighborhood? Why not tally electoral votes by household? *Why not tally electoral votes by individual? *That latter one is the fairest.
> 
> ...


If you're going to call me disingenuous each time you disagree with me on something, we're not going to have a level-headed discussion. I'm as genuine as it gets - I always speak my mind, which often gets me in trouble, but that's just the way I am. If I made a mistake, you can just point it out - I will happily concede it provided the evidence supports what you're saying, which in this case it does. I'm not a fan of the Electoral College either, just so we're clear, however! Since the states have been stripped off most of their power by implementing sweeping federal-level legislature, the Electoral College is the last vestige of said power which is necessary until the power to self-determine is restored to the states where it belongs. A good example here are the Marihuana laws. The drug became legal in numerous states as of late, a great victory from both a Democratic and Libertarian standpoints alike, which is unprecedented. It is, however, still illegal on a federal level. What this basically means is that if I want to become a weed farmer conforming with all the legal requirements of such a business, start employing people to tend to my plants and distribute them in accordance to all health and safety regulations, I must ask for a permit from the state, at which point I have no guarantee that the DEA won't put me in jail and the FDA won't shut me down since, technically, I'm a criminal, except I'm not, except I am. I would wholeheartedly support the idea of dismantling the Electoral College and I'd march towards Washington chanting the same slogans with you side-by-side if only the Federal government didn't intervene in the lives of private citizens and supersede whatever rules they wanted to live by, enacted by their representatives. The difference between a state government and the federal government is that one can very easily move states should the legislation in a state become unpalatable to one's taste, the same cannot be said about moving out of the country. The United States protect freedom of movement within the Union, moving out of the Union is an international affair. That's a whole different can of worms though, not really relevant in the context of the Russian narrative.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> "It's like you didn't read my post at all"
> 
> And, if we're going to start discussing a tangent that I made offhand as opposed to staying on the topic we're currently discussing, what makes you think your neighbor _isn't _contributing to society as much as you are? Disadvantaged people don't always get there because of laziness or lack of motivation, there are many factors. And if that person needs a tiny, tiny percentage of my net worth to help get back on their feet, I see no reason why I shouldn't give back to society in that way. Besides, paying taxes gets me a lot of "exclusive citizen benefits," like the ability to use publicly funded freeways, parks, and county/state buildings, for example. I even get a guarantee to decently-priced healthcare through my family's employment, although that may not be the case for very much longer


I'm not against public roads - I will happily pay for any service I use as long as you don't ask me to pay for it at gunpoint. Helping your fellow man is a virtue - do so through charity, don't force others to do so at the threat of violence. Forced charity isn't charity at all - it's theft. We go back to the ten thieves argument. Just because ten thieves democratically decided to steal from you doesn't mean they're not thieves, they're just thieves with a proclivity towards bureaucracy. If you don't think it's under the threat of violence and at gunpoint, you should try not paying taxes - government agents will soon knock on your door, and they have better guns. As for healthcare, I wouldn't let my employer choose what toppings I get on my pizza, why on earth would I want them to choose my healthcare plan? That's ridiculous in and out of itself and not at all what I'm advocating for - that's as anti-free market as it can possibly be.


----------



## Pluupy (Jun 30, 2017)

I think there are too many coincidences for Russia to not be involved in some way.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 30, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If you're going to call me disingenuous each time you disagree with me on something, we're not going to have a level-headed discussion. I'm as genuine as it gets - I always speak my mind, which often gets me in trouble, but that's just the way I am. If I made a mistake, you can just point it out - I will happily concede it provided the evidence supports what you're saying, which in this case it does. I'm not a fan of the Electoral College either, just so we're clear, however! Since the states have been stripped off most of their power by implementing seeeping federal-level legislature, the Electoral College is the last vestige of said power which is necessary until the power to self-determine is restored to the states where it belongs. A good example here are the Marihuana laws. The drug became legal in numerous states as of late, a great victory from both a Democratic and Libertarian standpoints alike, which is unprecedented. It is, however, still illegal on a federal level. What this basically means is that if I want to become a weed farmer conforming with all the legal requirements of such a business, start employing people to tend to my plants and distribute them in accordance to all health and safety regulations, I must ask for a permit from the state, at which point I have no guarantee that the DEA won't put me in jail and the FDA won't shut me down since, technically, I'm a criminal, except I'm not, except I am. I would wholeheartedly support the idea of dismantling the Electoral College and I'd march towards Washington chanting the same slogans with you side-by-side if only the Federal government didn't intervene in the lives of private citizens and supersede whatever rules they wanted to live by, enacted by their representatives. The difference between a state government and the federal government is that one can very easily move states should the legislation in a state become unpalatable to one's taste, the same cannot be said about moving out of the country. The United States protect freedom of movement within the Union, moving out of the Union is an international affair. That's a whole different can of worms though, not really relevant in the context of the Russian narrative.


Unless I've been dramatically misunderstanding what's going on, this is the opposite of what you've just been saying...


> I'm not against public roads - I will happily pay for any service I use as long as you don't ask me to pay for it at gunpoint. Helping your fellow man is a virtue - do so through charity, don't force others to do so at the threat of violence. Forced charity isn't charity at all - it's theft. We go back to the ten thieves argument. Just because ten thieves democratically decided to steal from you doesn't mean they're not thieves, they're just thieves with an proclivity towards bureaucracy.


I would certainly rather be able to contribute on an individual basis, but sadly that's not the most efficient way of helping everyone. Unless you have a centralized agency that knows who makes what amount of money for a certain amount of work they put in per week and therefore what should be dispensed out of the available funds, there are always going to be the people who unfairly will fall through the cracks and won't be able to receive aid that might literally save their (or their dependents') lives


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If you're going to call me disingenuous each time you disagree with me on something, we're not going to have a level-headed discussion.


I'm not calling you _disingenuous_ because I disagree with you. I disagree with a lot of people here and have never once called them _disingenuous_. Each time I've called you _disingenuous_, I've explained why. Among other things, you've misrepresented an article, you've misrepresented my past positions, and you've misrepresented history. Considering the times I've corrected you and you've ignored me, I have to assume you purposely spouted misinformation in a misguided attempt to win an argument, which I consider to be disingenuous.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm as genuine as it gets - I always speak my mind, which often gets me in trouble, but that's just the way I am. If I made a mistake, you can just point it out - I will happily concede it provided the evidence supports what you're saying, which in this case it does.


I've pointed out numerous inaccuracies and contradictions of yours in the past, and this is the only time I remember you conceding anything. That's another reason I've called you disingenuous.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm not a fan of the Electoral College either, just so we're clear, however! Since the states have been stripped off most of their power by implementing seeeping federal-level legislature, the Electoral College is the last vestige of said power which is necessary until the power to self-determine is restored to the states where it belongs. A good example here are the Marihuana laws. The drug became legal in numerous states as of late, a great victory from both a Democratic and Libertarian standpoints alike, which is unprecedented. It is, however, still illegal on a federal level. What this basically means is that if I want to become a weed farmer conforming with all the legal requirements of such a business, start employing people to tend to my plants and distribute them in accordance to all health and safety regulations, I must ask for a permit from the state, at which point I have no guarantee that the DEA won't put me in jail and the FDA won't shut me down since, technically, I'm a criminal, except I'm not, except I am. I would wholeheartedly support the idea of dismantling the Electoral College and I'd march towards Washington chanting the same slogans with you side-by-side if only the Federal government didn't intervene in the lives of private citizens and supersede whatever rules they wanted to live by, enacted by their representatives. The difference between a state government and the federal government is that one can very easily move states should the legislation in a state become unpalatable to one's taste, the same cannot be said about moving out of the country. The United States protect freedom of movement within the Union, moving out of the Union is an international affair. That's a whole different can of worms though, not really relevant in the context of the Russian narrative.


We can both acknowledge problems with state vs. federal law, particularly where they conflict. However, whether or not you like the amount of control states have over their own governments is irrelevant to whether or not the Electoral College is fair. You seem to have pulled a 180.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm not against public roads - I will happily pay for any service I use as long as you don't ask me to pay for it at gunpoint. Helping your fellow man is a virtue - do so through charity, don't force others to do so at the threat of violence. Forced charity isn't charity at all - it's theft. We go back to the ten thieves argument. Just because ten thieves democratically decided to steal from you doesn't mean they're not thieves, they're just thieves with a proclivity towards bureaucracy. If you don't think it's under the threat of violence and at gunpoint, you should try not paying taxes - government agents will soon knock on your door, and they have better guns. As for healthcare, I wouldn't let my employer choose what toppings I get on my pizza, why on earth would I want them to choose my healthcare plan? That's ridiculous in and out of itself and not at all what I'm advocating for - that's as anti-free market as it can possibly be.


If you don't like how your tax dollars are being spent, you can vote, advocate for policy, and even run for office. However, if those three things don't yield your desired results, you only have two options: deal with it or leave. There's no better system I'm aware of.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 30, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Unless I've been dramatically misunderstanding what's going on, this is the opposite of what you've just been saying...
> 
> I would certainly rather be able to contribute on an individual basis, but sadly that's not the most efficient way of helping everyone. Unless you have a centralized agency that knows who makes what amount of money for a certain amount of work they put in per week and therefore what should be dispensed out of the available funds, there are always going to be the people who unfairly will fall through the cracks and won't be able to receive aid that might literally save their (or their dependents') lives


Understanding why the Electoral College is still necessary and opposing its existence are two different things. I don't like brushing my teeth, but I don't like tooth rot more than I don't like brushing them. As for charity, state-sponsored welfare is many times less efficient than privately ran charities, money is drowned in bureaucratic structures before it ever reaches the intended recipients. If it wasn't midnight here, I would've posted some studies on that, but hey - you can look them up yourself.


Lacius said:


> I'm not calling you _disingenuous_ because I disagree with you. I disagree with a lot of people here and have never once called them _disingenuous_. Each time I've called you _disingenuous_, I've explained why. Among other things, you've misrepresented an article, you've misrepresented my past positions, and you've misrepresented history. Considering the times I've corrected you and you've ignored me, I have to assume you purposely spouted misinformation in a misguided attempt to win an argument, which I consider to be disingenuous.
> 
> I've pointed out numerous inaccuracies and contradictions of yours in the past, and this is the only time I remember you conceding anything. That's another reason I've called you disingenuous.
> 
> ...


You grossly overestimate my level of engagement - if I wanted to prove you wrong, I would with stats, figures and sources rather than replying on my mobile for the sake of a conversation. I have nothing to gain or lose here as I'm not even an American, so I don't know why you'd presume any form of wrong-doing on my part as if I was a Russian spy of some sort. I haven't conceded in the past because you haven't proven anything in the past, to my knowledge - my concessions are expensive, you need to work hard to get one, or I have to slip up due to my innate laziness and casual approach to the subject. As for the supposed 180, I started this conversation by saying that the Electoral College is necessary in order to protect state's rights and ended it by saying that the Electoral College is necessary to protect state's rights, I don't see the change you're trying to point out, besides different wording of the same idea, perhaps.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 30, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I'm not going to rehash old arguments we've had. Since legal marriage does exist, should people have equal access to it? Saying "nobody should have it" doesn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> What about when people are disadvantaged relative to you due to an immutable characteristic? In other words, if a person can't rise and fall the same as you despite equal work and equal merit, what should be done (if anything)? If nothing, what can be said about the type of society that you want to live in?
> ...


Completely missed your edit, so I'll address it late. As far as marriage is concerned, it depends on how you choose to define marriage. If you're asking specifically about access, "nobody should have access to it" is an entirely valid answer - it's obsolete in the modern age. If you want to get married, go to your church.

As far as immutable disadvantages are concerned, I don't think the government should intervene at all, neither on the state nor on the federal level. I'm sorry if you were born with some form of disadvantage, but that's not my fault - I'm not liable for it and shouldn't be burdened by it. Equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity to prosper, but never equal outcome - outcome is up to the individual and how said individual uses their strong points. I like cartoonish examples, so I will use one right now - if you were born a dwarf, or as the politically correct crowd likes to say, "a little person", I hate to break it to ya, but you won't make a good NBA player, and the state shouldn't step in and browbeat the NBA into making you one. That being said, your small posture doesn't mean that you don't have a large heart full of entrepreneurship. Start the National Dwarf Basketball League - I guarantee people will bust through windows to watch that. I personally know a head of a dwarf wrestling federation, people love it. As a less cartoonish example I can mention my numerous colleagues who are disabled, one of whom has high-functioning autism. He's great at his job, and he didn't get it because the government compelled the company to hire him - they hired him because he's good at what he does. Every individual is different and by trying to force square pegs into round holes the government is just screwing with people. The lesson shouldn't be that "you can be anything you want" - surprise, you can't. You can, however, discover something you're good at, at which point you should start doing it. You don't get a strong society by slowing everyone down to an equal pace, you get one by pushing your best and brightest forward. The law needs to be structured to reward effort, not to stifle it by lowering standards to lowest common denominators. Call me heartless if you want, I'll still tell you to start a GoFundMe. We live in the Internet age, you can start a business out of a basement, disabilities have never been less detrimental to success.

Now please, point out the inconsistency - I'm curious.


----------



## Reploid (Jun 30, 2017)

Its kinda well known fact that we did it among our folk, no secret at all. It is as commonly known as the fact that USSR saved europe in WWII


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 30, 2017)

Reploid said:


> Its kinda well known fact that we did it among our folk, no secret at all. It is as commonly known as the fact that USSR saved europe in WWII


Define "saved". If you mean enslaving half of it under totalitarian, communist rule then I'm not sure that's the kind of saving Europe needed. Just so we're clear, Stalin went after Hitler only after the third reich prodded the big communist bear, he didn't do it out of the goodness of his heart. Bad weather saved Europe, coupled with the inability of German engineers to prepare their tanks for cold temperatures. I will happily thank grease for freezing, I will never thank the Soviets for "saving" me.


----------



## Reploid (Jun 30, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Define "saved". If you mean enslaving half of it under totalitarian, communist rule then I'm not sure that's the kind of saving Europe needed. Just so we're clear, Stalin went after Hitler only after the third reich prodded the big communist bear, he didn't do it out of the goodness of his heart. Bad weather saved Europe, coupled with the inability of German engineers to prepare their tanks for cold temperatures. I will happily thank grease for freezing, I will never thank the Soviets for "saving" me.


Does history knows any other saves?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 30, 2017)

Reploid said:


> Does history knows any other saves?


I suppose you're right, but I prefer ones that don't entail mass genocide. People are quick to forget, but history never does - Stalinism murdered more people than Nazism.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 30, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> As far as immutable disadvantages are concerned, I don't think the government should intervene at all, neither on the state nor on the federal level. I'm sorry if you were born with some form of disadvantage, but that's not my fault - I'm not liable for it and shouldn't be burdened by it. Equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity to prosper, but never equal outcome - outcome is up to the individual and how said individual uses their strong points. I like cartoonish examples, so I will use one right now - if you were born a dwarf, or as the politically correct crowd likes to say, "a little person", I hate to break it to ya, but you won't make a good NBA player, and the state shouldn't step in and browbeat the NBA into making you one. That being said, your small posture doesn't mean that you don't have a large heart full of entrepreneurship. Start the National Dwarf Basketball League - I guarantee people will bust through windows to watch that. I personally know a head of a dwarf wrestling federation, people love it. As a less cartoonish example I can mention my numerous colleagues who are disabled, one of whom has high-functioning autism. He's great at his job, and he didn't get it because the government compelled the company to hire him - they hired him because he's great at what he does. Every individual is different and by trying to force square pegs into round holes the government prevents people from fulfilling their potentials. You don't get a strong society by slowing everyone down to an equal pace, you get one by pushing your best and brightest forward. The law needs to be structured to reward effort, not to stifle it by lowering standards to lowest common denominators. Call me heartless if you want, I'll still tell you to start a GoFundMe. We live in the Internet age, you can start a business out of a basement, disabilities have never been less detrimental to success.


Financial aid is hardly "trying to force a square peg into [a] round hole." It's trying to force a money-shaped peg into a money-shaped hole. And yes, while I understand that disabilities are not necessarily detrimental to employment status, there are definitely other factors that contribute to extreme poverty that would benefit from government assistance. For instance, during the Reagan administration, our middle class essentially got absolutely fucked over, which means there's a significant disparity between the people who have "more than enough to get by" and "are taking out loans to pay off their loans." I know that you live in Poland, so I have no idea if the situation is significantly different over there than it is here. But here, if you're born into poverty, it's basically guaranteed that unless you can pull of a miracle with your grades (which is unlikely for a multitude of reasons if you're living in a lower-class district) and get a bunch of scholarships on top of advanced financial aid, the highest academic grade level you're going to achieve is a senior in high school. Because of this, any work you're going to get is either going to be manual labor (which, don't get me wrong, pays very well, but isn't for everyone) or a minimum-wage job, which, here in the US, is not enough to actually live by if you pay rent and have to buy your own groceries. So, to get by those first few years before you get a pay raise, you're going to rake up a bunch of credit card debt, which annihilates your credit score, making it difficult to look for future housing/vehicle options. You also may be at increased risk of illness, which your low end job most likely won't cover if you're admitted into the hospital for anything that doesn't occur on-site, thus putting you in further debt. Then the cycle continues.

I get that the narrative of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" is poetic and all, but I honestly think that anyone who advocates for either hasn't had it as bad as the people they're referring to, or has never had to do it themselves, period.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Completely missed your edit, so I'll address it late. As far as marriage is concerned, it depends on how you choose to define marriage. If you're asking specifically about access, "nobody should have access to it" is an entirely valid answer - it's obsolete in the modern age. If you want to get married, go to your church.


You still didn't answer my question. Once again, you're being... dare I say it... disingenuous.



Foxi4 said:


> As far as immutable disadvantages are concerned, I don't think the government should intervene at all, neither on the state nor on the federal level. I'm sorry if you were born with some form of disadvantage, but that's not my fault - I'm not liable for it and shouldn't be burdened by it. Equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity to prosper, but never equal outcome - outcome is up to the individual and how said individual uses their strong points. I like cartoonish examples, so I will use one right now - if you were born a dwarf, or as the politically correct crowd likes to say, "a little person", I hate to break it to ya, but you won't make a good NBA player, and the state shouldn't step in and browbeat the NBA into making you one. That being said, your small posture doesn't mean that you don't have a large heart full of entrepreneurship. Start the National Dwarf Basketball League - I guarantee people will bust through windows to watch that. I personally know a head of a dwarf wrestling federation, people love it. As a less cartoonish example I can mention my numerous colleagues who are disabled, one of whom has high-functioning autism. He's great at his job, and he didn't get it because the government compelled the company to hire him - they hired him because he's good at what he does. Every individual is different and by trying to force square pegs into round holes the government is just screwing with people. The lesson shouldn't be that "you can be anything you want" - surprise, you can't. You can, however, discover something you're good at, at which point you should start doing it. You don't get a strong society by slowing everyone down to an equal pace, you get one by pushing your best and brightest forward. The law needs to be structured to reward effort, not to stifle it by lowering standards to lowest common denominators. Call me heartless if you want, I'll still tell you to start a GoFundMe. We live in the Internet age, you can start a business out of a basement, disabilities have never been less detrimental to success.
> 
> Now please, point out the inconsistency - I'm curious.


If you want people to have equal opportunity and to be rewarded proportionally to the quality and quantity of the work they put in, you can't simultaneously advocate against policy that would, for example, criminalize discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic. You say you don't want to give certain groups of people advantages, you don't want people to be given special treatment, etc., but in a hypothetical world where you're able to get a business loan but a black man cannot solely because he's black, you're getting special treatment. You don't seem to realize that barring discrimination, for example, isn't favoring one group over another or giving anyone special treatment; it's getting rid of the special treatment that would otherwise exist.

In other words, you've expressed a particular worldview, but you're against the policy that is conducive to that worldview. That's the contradiction. You can't say "I don't want people to get special treatment" while doing nothing about the special treatment people are getting.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Jul 1, 2017)

I'll just leave this here for you fine folks...


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 1, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> I'll just leave this here for you fine folks...




Why do people defend those CNN losers? And there's a word that I want to say that starts with C, but I'm sure people can guess. Because this guy is just a class act cretin.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Financial aid is hardly "trying to force a square peg into [a] round hole." It's trying to force a money-shaped peg into a money-shaped hole. And yes, while I understand that disabilities are not necessarily detrimental to employment status, there are definitely other factors that contribute to extreme poverty that would benefit from government assistance. For instance, during the Reagan administration, our middle class essentially got absolutely fucked over, which means there's a significant disparity between the people who have "more than enough to get by" and "are taking out loans to pay off their loans." I know that you live in Poland, so I have no idea if the situation is significantly different over there than it is here. But here, if you're born into poverty, it's basically guaranteed that unless you can pull of a miracle with your grades (which is unlikely for a multitude of reasons if you're living in a lower-class district) and get a bunch of scholarships on top of advanced financial aid, the highest academic grade level you're going to achieve is a senior in high school. Because of this, any work you're going to get is either going to be manual labor (which, don't get me wrong, pays very well, but isn't for everyone) or a minimum-wage job, which, here in the US, is not enough to actually live by if you pay rent and have to buy your own groceries. So, to get by those first few years before you get a pay raise, you're going to rake up a bunch of credit card debt, which annihilates your credit score, making it difficult to look for future housing/vehicle options. You also may be at increased risk of illness, which your low end job most likely won't cover if you're admitted into the hospital for anything that doesn't occur on-site, thus putting you in further debt. Then the cycle continues.
> 
> I get that the narrative of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" is poetic and all, but I honestly think that anyone who advocates for either hasn't had it as bad as the people they're referring to, or has never had to do it themselves, period.


I don't live in Poland. I legally emigrated on my own dime and found employment relatively quickly. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.


Lacius said:


> You still didn't answer my question. Once again, you're being... dare I say it... disingenuous.


And you're asking me a gotcha question. The fact that we have the institution of marriage around is irrelevant to the question of whether people should have equal access to it. If you're asking a stupid question when you already know my position, don't be surprised to get a stupid answer. I'll make this easier for you - if you ask me "should everyone have equal access to it?" I'll say yes, by which I mean the legal institution of marriage shouldn't exist, thus nobody should have access to it. That's technically equal access - no access at all, equally across the board. If you want to ask the cartoonish question of whether homosexuals should have access to it just to fuck with me, I'll say "No", because nobody should ever get married, homosexual or otherwise, period. If you're asking for the requirements of marriage then first we need to define the purposes of the union, and then the requirements will form themselves before your eyes.


> If you want people to have equal opportunity and to be rewarded proportionally to the quality and quantity of the work they put in, you can't simultaneously advocate against policy that would, for example, criminalize discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic. You say you don't want to give certain groups of people advantages, you don't want people to be given special treatment, etc., but in a hypothetical world where you're able to get a business loan but a black man cannot solely because he's black, you're getting special treatment. You don't seem to realize that barring discrimination, for example, isn't favoring one group over another or giving anyone special treatment; it's getting rid of the special treatment that would otherwise exist.
> 
> In other words, you've expressed a particular worldview, but you're against the policy that is conducive to that worldview. That's the contradiction. You can't say "I don't want people to get special treatment" while doing nothing about the special treatment people are getting.


People have an equal opportunity of success *under the law* and should not be discriminated *by the state*, the only contradiction you're seeing is rooted in the idea that equality should be enforced with a gun to everyone's temple - an idea I do not share. You *have* equal opportunities *today*. Protections against people not going along with eachother shouldn't exist and you can't force one group to actually embrace another - you're only building resentment. Forcing me to pretend to like someone I can't stomach or else, whatever the reason may be, is punishing me for wrong-think, which is totalitarian. If I'm an employer, I have freedom of choosing who to employ in *my* establishment - you can judge if you want, but you can't punish me. If you don't like the way I run my business, don't do business with me.

I contest the idea that Affirmative Action is there to nullify preferential treatment that'd otherwise exist. The government has no right to be selective in how to treat citizens as we're all supposed to be equal under the law. A private citizen can, which doesn't make it not frowned upon. If you're the Dean of Harvard and you have three SAT score sheets, you should treat them equally - the higher the better, and may the best win. If you dock the score of the Asian kid, keep the white kid's score intact and add a couple of points to the black kid's score, you are a fucking racist, I don't care why you're doing it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

America is having an extremely hard time understanding that you can't fix racism with more racism - "reverse racism" isn't a thing, it's just racism. If you give someone preferential treatment because they're a little browner than everybody else and thus they'll be a good addition to your diverse team, you're playing the identity politics game and you've become exactly what you purport to hate, you just dressed it up nicely.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 1, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't live in Poland. I legally emigrated on my own dime and found employment relatively quickly. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.


??? Where _do _you live, then? You've given the impression that you don't live in the US, and your (changeable) flag says Poland


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ??? Where _do _you live, then? You've given the impression that you don't live in the US, and your (changeable) flag says Poland


That's because I'm Polish and I don't live in the U.S.? My nationality didn't change just because I moved.  I live in the UK, I moved to Wales a few years back.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 1, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's because I'm Polish and I don't live in the U.S.? My nationality didn't change just because I moved.  I live in the UK, I moved to Wales a few years back.


Ah, I see. Sorry, I was just a bit confused lol

Either way though, my point still stands. Just replace "Poland" with "Wales"


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ah, I see. Sorry, I was just a bit confused lol
> 
> Either way though, my point still stands. Just replace "Poland" with "Wales"


It doesn't, because I don't buy such excuses. The government, or society as a whole, has no obligation to prop you up. The government has an obligation to create a level legal playing field, but besides that your success is in your hands. You have to use your strong points to your advantage and prop *yourself* up. There's nothing unfair about some people being wealthier than others - they, or their ancestors, worked to get that money. It doesn't belong to you or to the government and nobody is entitled to redistribute it to "make things equal" - that's theft. You having different circumstances doesn't restrict your capacity to be successful. Nobody says that everyone should be an astronaut - attainable goals are an important part of planning.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2017)

After rethinking the argument I'm having with @TotalInsanity4 (who is still salvageable, we'll make people out of him with some luck) I noticed that I may have come off as a tad unfeeling or unfair and that my position needed some clarification. As I said, I lean on the side of equal opportunity, however I don't believe that Affirmative Action is a reasonable solution to the various problems facing minorities. If we consider blacks as an example specifically, to make my position clearer, the reason why their scores are generally lower and their prospects on the job market without such policies are markedly worse as a result is because they overwhelmingly live in areas of perpetual poverty, in neighbourhoods riddled with crime, they're brought up in broken up, single-parent households and attend terrible public schools with high drop-out rates. Pretending that their performance is better than it really is relative to another person is idiotic - that doesn't solve the root cause of the issue. Besides, those issues don't just affect black people - white, asian or native poor kids perform just as poorly in their future lives. The solution here is better funding for urban development, a stronger police presence to ensure safety, better public education with a stronger curriculum, an increased, not decreased level of requirements for college education and an overall higher level of education in terms of quality. The reason why a college degree has become what a high school diploma used to be isn't because the standards of the job market increased, it's because the standards of public schooling decreased and college degrees started being handed out willy-nilly, ultimately lowering the degree's value. If everyone finishes college then it just doesn't matter - it's just a piece of paper. It is the government's job to address the issues of the public sector and invest in areas of relative poverty, it is not the government's job to treat people unequally based on their colour of skin, sex or other characteristics under the premise that that'll somehow rub off on the rest of their community - it won't. Even with all of those issues addressed by the government, such areas cannot escape the grasp of poverty if the communities themselves do not trigger a change in their culture, which is probably the most important factor here. If the community wholeheartedly believes that it is being persecuted, it will never rise above that. This is not something a government can wave a wand at and fix - families need to instill certain values, children need to be taught to believe in themselves, to believe that they are equal, to believe that they are protected just like everybody else and to believe that their success is in their hands, and it needs to happen at a young age. The United States of America is one of the only countries on Earth that was established with the rights of an individual, not a collective, in mind. It is, and always has been, the Mecca for individuals who want to make their dreams come true through hard work, dedication and entrepreneurship. If you take that cult of the individual away and replace it with various labels translating to "bonus points", you are chipping away the very foundation of the country. The government should create, or at least attempt to create equal opportunities, the government has a responsibility to modernise and invest in run-down areas to catch them up with more prosperous ones, but it should not force an equal outcome upon its citizens - the outcome is up to the individual, always.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 1, 2017)

Lacius said:


> You still didn't answer my question. Once again, you're being... dare I say it... disingenuous.
> 
> 
> If you want people to have equal opportunity and to be rewarded proportionally to the quality and quantity of the work they put in, you can't simultaneously advocate against policy that would, for example, criminalize discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic. You say you don't want to give certain groups of people advantages, you don't want people to be given special treatment, etc., but in a hypothetical world where you're able to get a business loan but a black man cannot solely because he's black, you're getting special treatment. You don't seem to realize that barring discrimination, for example, isn't favoring one group over another or giving anyone special treatment; it's getting rid of the special treatment that would otherwise exist.
> ...



I feel like you are being pretty disingenuous in terms of your argumentation with regards here.

It is completely valid to personally advocate for a certain ideal system yet also be against such policy that would enact such a thing in a certain way or period. To say otherwise is simply foolish. This is because there are countless questions that must be asked such as is such a bill ethical, Constitutionally sound, or productive? It can have the intent of providing a framework such as to end discrimination but it may not pass the other tests.

Now I must say I have no problem with race, gender, or sexuality being used to discriminate in terms of whether it comes to private people and organizations acting in business from a legal or ethical standpoint. Why? Because criteria is purely subjective and people should be free to set it up however they want to as the only opinion that matters is that of the business owner who initiates the steps of the process. This is not to say I agree with such processes but is thier right to do so.


----------



## Eightcoins (Jul 1, 2017)

Thats pretty much my opinion towards the election


----------



## Eightcoins (Jul 1, 2017)

okay wtf is this,why did this get posted 4 times
please delete
Thats pretty much my opinion towards the election


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 1, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> After rethinking the argument I'm having with @TotalInsanity4 (who is still salvageable, we'll make people out of him with some luck) I noticed that I may have come off as a tad unfeeling or unfair and that my position needed some clarification. As I said, I lean on the side of equal opportunity, however I don't believe that Affirmative Action is a reasonable solution to the various problems facing minorities. If we consider blacks as an example specifically, to make my position clearer, the reason why their scores are generally lower and their prospects on the job market without such policies are markedly worse as a result is because they overwhelmingly live in areas of perpetual poverty, in neighbourhoods riddled with crime, they're brought up in broken up, single-parent households and attend terrible public schools with high drop-out rates. Pretending that their performance is better than it really is relative to another person is idiotic - that doesn't solve the root cause of the issue. Besides, those issues don't just affect black people - white, asian or native poor kids perform just as poorly in their future lives. The solution here is better funding for urban development, a stronger police presence to ensure safety, better public education with a stronger curriculum, an increased, not decreased level of requirements for college education and an overall higher level of education in terms of quality. The reason why a college degree has become what a high school diploma used to be isn't because the standards of the job market increased, it's because the standards of public schooling decreased and college degrees started being handed out willy-nilly, ultimately lowering the degree's value. If everyone finishes college then it just doesn't matter - it's just a piece of paper. It is the government's job to address the issues of the public sector and invest in areas of relative poverty, it is not the government's job to treat people unequally based on their colour of skin, sex or other characteristics under the premise that that'll somehow rub off on the rest of their community - it won't. Even with all of those issues addressed by the government, such areas cannot escape the grasp of poverty if the communities themselves do not trigger a change in their culture, which is probably the most important factor here. If the community wholeheartedly believes that it is being persecuted, it will never rise above that. This is not something a government can wave a wand at and fix - families need to instill certain values, children need to be taught to believe in themselves, to believe that they are equal, to believe that they are protected just like everybody else and to believe that their success is in their hands, and it needs to happen at a young age. The United States of America is one of the only countries on Earth that was established with the rights of an individual, not a collective, in mind. It is, and always has been, the Mecca for individuals who want to make their dreams come true through hard work, dedication and entrepreneurship. If you take that cult of the individual away and replace it with various labels translating to "bonus points", you are chipping away the very foundation of the country. The government should create, or at least attempt to create equal opportunities, the government has a responsibility to modernise and invest in run-down areas to catch them up with more prosperous ones, but it should not force an equal outcome upon its citizens - the outcome is up to the individual, always.


For the record, I never mentioned skin color, I was specifically referring to poverty in general. I do appreciate the clarification, though, because it makes your argument seen significantly less heartless. And yes, I agree with most of what you're saying in terms of where funding should go to improve the situation, with the exception of funding for police; before any budget raising goes to them, they need to improve either their training for situations under pressure, their entry requirements, or both

Edit: I also still stand by taxpayer-funded college and healthcare, as well


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> And you're asking me a gotcha question. The fact that we have the institution of marriage around is irrelevant to the question of whether people should have equal access to it. If you're asking a stupid question when you already know my position, don't be surprised to get a stupid answer. I'll make this easier for you - if you ask me "should everyone have equal access to it?" I'll say yes, by which I mean the legal institution of marriage shouldn't exist, thus nobody should have access to it. That's technically equal access - no access at all, equally across the board. If you want to ask the cartoonish question of whether homosexuals should have access to it just to fuck with me, I'll say "No", because nobody should ever get married, homosexual or otherwise, period. If you're asking for the requirements of marriage then first we need to define the purposes of the union, and then the requirements will form themselves before your eyes.


It's not a gotcha question. It's not a stupid question. It's not a cartoonish question. Given the world we live in, it's _the_ question.

To truly understand your opinion though, I am going to ask a cartoonish question now: If you were a president, governor, etc., and you received a bill on your desk banning opposite-sex marriage but leaving intact same-sex marriage, would you sign it?



Foxi4 said:


> People have an equal opportunity of success *under the law* and should not be discriminated *by the state*, the only contradiction you're seeing is rooted in the idea that equality should be enforced with a gun to everyone's temple - an idea I do not share. You *have* equal opportunities *today*. Protections against people not going along with eachother shouldn't exist and you can't force one group to actually embrace another - you're only building resentment. Forcing me to pretend to like someone I can't stomach or else, whatever the reason may be, is punishing me for wrong-think, which is totalitarian. If I'm an employer, I have freedom of choosing who to employ in *my* establishment - you can judge if you want, but you can't punish me. If you don't like the way I run my business, don't do business with me.
> 
> I contest the idea that Affirmative Action is there to nullify preferential treatment that'd otherwise exist. The government has no right to be selective in how to treat citizens as we're all supposed to be equal under the law. A private citizen can, which doesn't make it not frowned upon. If you're the Dean of Harvard and you have three SAT score sheets, you should treat them equally - the higher the better, and may the best win. If you dock the score of the Asian kid, keep the white kid's score intact and add a couple of points to the black kid's score, you are a fucking racist, I don't care why you're doing it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> 
> America is having an extremely hard time understanding that you can't fix racism with more racism - "reverse racism" isn't a thing, it's just racism. If you give someone preferential treatment because they're a little browner than everybody else and thus they'll be a good addition to your diverse team, you're playing the identity politics game and you've become exactly what you purport to hate, you just dressed it up nicely.


I understand your points of view, but they are contradictory. If you believe people should generally have equal opportunity but you don't think government should be big enough to step in when people don't generally have equal opportunity, you have to pick which worldview is more important to you since they conflict. In your case, you've apparently picked the latter. I pick the former.



RevPokemon said:


> I feel like you are being pretty disingenuous in terms of your argumentation with regards here.
> 
> It is completely valid to personally advocate for a certain ideal system yet also be against such policy that would enact such a thing in a certain way or period. To say otherwise is simply foolish. This is because there are countless questions that must be asked such as is such a bill ethical, Constitutionally sound, or productive? It can have the intent of providing a framework such as to end discrimination but it may not pass the other tests.
> 
> Now I must say I have no problem with race, gender, or sexuality being used to discriminate in terms of whether it comes to private people and organizations acting in business from a legal or ethical standpoint. Why? Because criteria is purely subjective and people should be free to set it up however they want to as the only opinion that matters is that of the business owner who initiates the steps of the process. This is not to say I agree with such processes but is thier right to do so.


I agree. A person can advocate for a certain point of view with regard to how he or she thinks things should be, and that person can also be against policy conducive to that worldview. That doesn't mean there isn't a contradiction. See above on how a person with opposing worldviews has to prioritize one over the other.

I generally believe people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not violating other people's rights. When a violation of someone's rights occurs, I have to weigh case-by-case whose rights are more important. In the case of a business discriminating against potential employees/customers, I believe the rights of the latter are more important, and that's not even factoring in the historical precedent for the kind of metaphorical dystopia that exists for certain groups of people when that kind of discrimination is allowed to exist. I know we disagree on this. We don't need to rehash this part of the conversation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> For the record, I never mentioned skin color, I was specifically referring to poverty in general. I do appreciate the clarification, though, because it makes your argument seen significantly less heartless. And yes, I agree with most of what you're saying in terms of where funding should go to improve the situation, with the exception of funding for police; before any budget raising goes to them, they need to improve either their training for situations under pressure, their entry requirements, or both
> 
> Edit: I also still stand by taxpayer-funded college and healthcare, as well


Training goes without saying, however I oppose the idea that police officers are out there specifically gunning for black people - they're there because the area is poor, and they're needed there more than anywhere else. I disagree with tax payer-funded college and healthcare because other citizens shouldn't be burdened by your good and bad decisions - the country needs a truly free market solution which would give people choice in terms of education and healthcare coverage, at that point it's up to them to make good or bad decisions on their own. Both fields need to be competitive as well to ensure lower prices and higher quality of service. Those a minor disagreements though, at least we found some common ground.


----------



## Deleted member 420418 (Jul 1, 2017)

I'm not exactly sure about the problem, I honestly think there just trying to kick Trump out.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 1, 2017)

blubber987 said:


> I'm not exactly sure about the problem, I honestly think there just trying to kick Trump out.



People are still upset that Clinton didn't win. If she won, I would be going on my share of diatribes, that's for sure. She was a proponent for that stupid TPP,which would've been a huge violation of our rights (it seemed "innocuous" but there were things they were going to do to the internet and violate many rights and laws to get their way).  That's the *only *real reason I didn't want her elected, not gonna lie.

Criminalizing console modifications, sites like GBA Temp would've been affected by stricter copyright laws, jailbreaking phones would've been made illegal, the list goes on on why the TPP was a very very bad idea.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> People are still upset that Clinton didn't win. If she won, I would be going on my share of diatribes, that's for sure. She was a proponent for that stupid TPP,which would've been a huge violation of our rights (it seemed "innocuous" but there were things they were going to do to the internet and violate many rights and laws to get their way).  That's the *only *real reason I didn't want her elected, not gonna lie.


I'm not here to rehash old Trump vs. Clinton arguments from last year, but Clinton was against the TPP.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 1, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I'm not here to rehash old Trump vs. Clinton arguments from last year, but Clinton was against the TPP.



I thought she was only saying that for the sake of saying it, and would've gone back on her word once she was in power. I've heard she was against it too, but who knows. Politicians, no matter the party, cannot be trusted.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I thought she was only saying that for the sake of saying it, and would've gone back on her word once she was in power. I've heard she was against it too, but who knows. Politicians, no matter the party, cannot be trusted.


Not to be rude, but I can't have a discussion with someone when we start from a position of facts not mattering because one feels like something else is true. Clinton was against the TPP. To say "she can't be trusted when she says that" means we can't talk about it anymore.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 1, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Not to be rude, but I can't have a discussion with someone when we start from a position of facts not mattering because one feels like something else is true. Clinton was against the TPP. To say "she can't be trusted when she says that" means we can't talk about it anymore.



Whatever you say, I personally couldn't care less about politics anyway. I'll simply leave the thread or something. I still think people are bitter about her losing the election. If she won and others lost, people would still be bitter no matter who won or lost. No one is ever placated.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 1, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Not to be rude, but I can't have a discussion with someone when we start from a position of facts not mattering because one feels like something else is true. Clinton was against the TPP. To say "she can't be trusted when she says that" means we can't talk about it anymore.



But in the case of Clinton and the TPP her change of opinion was absolute bullshit. By all accounts, her story is extremely contradictory as Tim Lee mentions https://www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9474151/hillary-clinton-tpp-flip-flop . So it is safe to say she clearly supported the TPP much as how Trump supported action in Syria.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> But in the case of Clinton and the TPP her change of opinion was absolute bullshit. By all accounts, her story is extremely contradictory as Tim Lee mentions https://www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9474151/hillary-clinton-tpp-flip-flop . So it is safe to say she clearly supported the TPP much as how Trump supported action in Syria.


I didn't want to rehash this conversation, so I'll be brief. The version of the TPP that Clinton rejected during the 2016 campaign didn't even exist when she wrote in her 2014 book that she hoped the TPP would set a gold standard. Even if we pretend she flip-flopped, she was still against the TPP.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 1, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I didn't want to rehash this conversation, so I'll be brief. The version of the TPP that Clinton rejected during the 2016 campaign didn't even exist when she wrote in her 2014 book that she hoped the TPP would set a gold standard.



The problem with your view is that as Lee stated, the issues that were problematic were already in the "Gold standard" version of the bill and in the case of medical patients actually got better. So because of this, her position is extremely questionable to anyone as Lee showed.



Lacius said:


> Even if we pretend she flip-flopped, she was still against the TPP.


The issue is about genuinely flip flopping (which can be a good thing subjectively) and saying so to get the voters of which Clinton did.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> and saying so to get the voters of which Clinton did.


You can't possibly know that, so I'm even more disinclined to participate in this conversation than I already was.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 1, 2017)

Lacius said:


> You can't possibly know that, so I'm even more disinclined to participate in this conversation than I already was.


Yes, you can really know that. The realistic options are


Agree that the TPP was ultimately not up to her high standards and thus she changed her mind (which as Lee noted is unlikely)
She was wrong about the TPP the whole time and it was always bad so now she came out against it (which her remarks imply otherwise)
Her policy change was due to get voter support from the left wing of the Democratic Party
So out of those the only one that is not contradictory is the last one.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> Yes, you can really know that. The realistic options are
> 
> 
> Agree that the TPP was ultimately not up to her high standards and thus she changed her mind (which as Lee noted is unlikely)
> ...


Options 1 and 2 are both very likely, despite Lee's points. I'm ending my participation in the conversation here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2017)

Lacius said:


> It's not a gotcha question. It's not a stupid question. It's not a cartoonish question. Given the world we live in, it's _the_ question.
> 
> To truly understand your opinion though, I am going to ask a cartoonish question now: If you were a president, governor, etc., and you received a bill on your desk banning opposite-sex marriage but leaving intact same-sex marriage, would you sign it?
> 
> ...


I think you already know my answer, you know me enough, but I'll entertain the hypothetical notion of me being governor for a moment and answer anyways. Everything depends on the definition of marriage we accept as valid and codify. If a marriage is supposed to be a union between two people for the express purpose of establishing a family unit and bearing children, homosexual relationships are de facto excluded from that definition for obvious biological reasons, thus I would not sign it as it would be in violation of pre-existing law - that's the case in my home country and I don't have an issue with that. It's a calculated investment of the state that lowers the bar for married couples in terms of taxation, as well as some subsidies for ease of finding a dwelling, with the return being the prospect of new citizen/s. That's not the definition used in the U.S. though, so I have to use the less palatable definition of marriage for the heck of it, which is fine - I can't change that, it's up to the federal government. With that said, I can proceed to the document itself. Marriage and family units are a morality conundrum more than anything else and I believe that it is not the government's job to enforce morality upon its citizens, especially if that entails enforcing your own moral code, which is subjective by definition. I see politicians as public servants first and lawmakers second, thus I would consider my role as one of servitude. Since it's the community that decides its rules of engagement, I would consult with the citizens of the state themselves - launching a survey is simple enough and gives a clear indication of what the people want. If the result was positive, I would sign it happily since my personal opinion is inconsequential - I was elected to represent the interests of my state and my state directly made a decision. If it was negative, I would postpone signing the document and await the reaction of public opinion. If I receive substantial backlash, I would re-evaluate as a mistake might've been made in the polling process. If I don't, I wouldn't sign the bill - that's the will of the people who entrusted me with my position. It's a simple enough breakdown - what I feel about marriage shouldn't have any impact on legislature that gets written into the law. Should the federal government step in and create a nation-wide rule regarding marriage equality, it would be enacted accordingly without question, although I certainly wouldn't be happy with the state stepping in as I'm not a fan of obtuse social engineering.

As for my point of view on equal opportunity, you once again fail to acknowledge the argument that's being made - you see a contradiction where there isn't one. The government should invest in *public* spaces to ensure that opportunities are there, however it has no right to enforce arbitrary moral rules on individuals. There's absolutely no contradiction on my end, rather a conflation of values on your end. You conflate the ideas of equal opportunity under the law and equal treatment by private citizens, to me they're two completely different and unrelated issues. The government should guarantee that there's a road in front of your house and nobody prohibits you from using it because it's a public resource and a part of national infrastructure that all citizens fund and should have equal access to, but it cannot ensure that you'll catch a taxi on that road because the taxi is owned by a private individual and the government has no claim on private property or on the privately operated business. Catch a different taxi. Catch a bus. Be sure to complain to the owner - that driver should be fired if the offense is egregious. I'm sorry that your driver was an asshole, but that's not my fault. This is the exact same case as Johnson's Nazi Cakes - you believe that an establishment should be forced to engage in business with a customer they do not wish to associate with (which I find unconstitutional and a direct violation of freedom of association) because of some magical "social contract" (which is entirely made up and non-binding) whereas I believe that it's entirely up to the owner to provide or refuse any business, the free market provides in either case - Uber and Lyft emerged for a reason. Again, equal opportunity does not entail equal outcome.

You make the argument that such instances should be decided on a case-by-case basis, I don't, because I don't think it's the government's job to force people to co-operate. The government should never be used as a gun pointed at individuals - people are smart and they can govern themselves in small groups very effectively. There's no such thing as someone's rights taking precedent over another person's rights - a right is inalienable. Your rights are not any more or less important than mine. If citizens have freedom of association then they are free to choose who they associate with and if the government interferes and violates those rights, it is breaking its own rules and should be held liable for overstepping its authority.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I think you already know my answer, you know me enough, but I'll entertain the hypothetical notion of me being governor for a moment and answer anyways. Everything depends on the definition of marriage we accept as valid and codify. If a marriage is supposed to be a union between two people for the express purpose of establishing a family unit and bearing children, homosexual relationships are de facto excluded from that definition for obvious biological reasons, thus I would not sign it as it would be in violation of pre-existing law - that's the case in my home country and I don't have an issue with that. It's a calculated investment of the state that lowers the bar for married couples in terms of taxation, as well as some subsidies for ease of finding a dwelling, with the return being the prospect of new citizen/s. That's not the definition used in the U.S. though, so I have to use the less palatable definition of marriage for the heck of it, which is fine - I can't change that, it's up to the federal government. With that said, I can proceed to the document itself. Marriage and family units are a morality conundrum more than anything else and I believe that it is not the government's job to enforce morality upon its citizens, especially if that entails enforcing your own moral code, which is subjective by definition. I see politicians as public servants first and lawmakers second, thus I would consider my role as one of servitude. Since it's the community that decides its rules of engagement, I would consult with the citizens of the state themselves - launching a survey is simple enough and gives a clear indication of what the people want. If the result was positive, I would sign it happily since my personal opinion is inconsequential - I was elected to represent the interests of my state and my state directly made a decision. If it was negative, I would postpone signing the document and await the reaction of public opinion. If I receive substantial backlash, I would re-evaluate as a mistake might've been made in the polling process. If I don't, I wouldn't sign the bill - that's the will of the people who entrusted me with my position. It's a simple enough breakdown - what I feel about marriage shouldn't have any impact on legislature that gets written into the law. Should the federal government step in and create a nation-wide rule regarding marriage equality, it would be enacted accordingly without question, although I certainly wouldn't be happy with the state stepping in as I'm not a fan of obtuse social engineering.


In Scenario 1A, you didn't sign the first bill because of the view that marriage is intended to foster procreation and child-rearing. If a second bill came to your desk banning sterile people, postmenopausal women, etc. from marrying, would you sign it?

In Scenario 1B, you conducted a public opinion survey and hypothetically signed the first bill outlawing opposite-sex marriages. If a second bill came to your desk outlawing discrimination against trans people in matters of housing, employment, consumerism, etc., would you conduct another public opinion survey and then sign the bill into law if the survey came back positive?

Your response to Scenario 1B was a cop-out, so I'm going to offer you another scenario (Scenario 2). There's a proposition on the ballot, and you're just a citizen. The proposition is nearly identical to the bill I described that bans opposite-sex marriage. Would you vote Yes, No, or abstain?



Foxi4 said:


> As for my point of view on equal opportunity, you once again fail to acknowledge the argument that's being made - you see a contradiction where there isn't one. The government should invest in *public* spaces to ensure that opportunities are there, however it has no right to enforce arbitrary moral rules on individuals. There's absolutely no contradiction on my end, rather a conflation of values on your end. You conflate the ideas of equal opportunity under the law and equal treatment by private citizens, to me they're two completely different and unrelated issues. The government should guarantee that there's a road in front of your house and nobody prohibits you from using it because it's a public resource and a part of national infrastructure that all citizens fund and should have equal access to, but it cannot ensure that you'll catch a taxi on that road because the taxi is owned by a private individual and the government has no claim on private property or on the privately operated business. Catch a different taxi. Catch a bus. Be sure to complain to the owner - that driver should be fired if the offense is egregious. I'm sorry that your driver was an asshole, but that's not my fault. This is the exact same case as Johnson's Nazi Cakes - you believe that a business should be forced to engage in business with a customer they do not wish to associate with (which I find unconstitutional and a direct violation of freedom of association) because of some magical "social contract" (which is entirely made up and non-binding) whereas I believe that it's entirely up to the owner to provide or refuse any business, the free market provides in either case - Uber and Lyft emerged for a reason. Again, equal opportunity does not entail equal outcome.


I acknowledged your argument more than once. There is, however, a contradiction in your two worldviews. You were able to prioritize one worldview over the other.

With regard to this specific topic, our disagreement boils down to our views on the role of government, and there's not much point in continuing to discuss it. You value small government over people's well-being and equal opportunities, and I value people's well-being and equal opportunities over the concept of small government.



Foxi4 said:


> You make the argument that such instances should be decided on a case-by-case basis, I don't, because I don't think it's the government's job to force people to co-operate. The government should never be used as a gun pointed at individuals - people are smart and they can govern themselves in small groups very effectively.


I hope you realize you're forming an argument against having a publically funded police force. A publically funded police force, courts of law, etc. are forms of the government forcing people to cooperate. Police officers, federal officers, etc. literally point guns at individuals.



Foxi4 said:


> There's no such thing as someone's rights taking precedent over another person's rights - a right is inalienable.


First, there are very few, if any, rights that are actually inalienable. The universe doesn't care whether or not you have a right to life, free speech, etc.

Second, when I talk about one's rights, I am just talking about one's ability to do something.



Foxi4 said:


> Your rights are not any more or less important than mine. If citizens have freedom of association then they are free to choose who they associate with and if the government interferes and violates those rights, it is breaking its own rules and should be held liable for overstepping its authority.


People's rights are in conflict all of the time, and some are indeed more or less important than others. Does Person A's right to play his or her stereo loudly outweigh Person B's right to not have to listen to Person A's loud music? Does Person A's right to free speech outweigh Person B's right to not experience mass panic when Person A falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded room? It's dangerous to dogmatically make absolute statements about rights. Everything has to be taken case-by-case.

There's also no general freedom of association that I'm aware of. I'd need an example of what you're talking about.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 1, 2017)

Lacius said:


> You value small government over people's well-being and equal opportunities, and I value people's well-being and equal opportunities over the concept of small government.


The issue is that you are assuming this when in his (and mine) view the opposite is true to some extent as the well being of the people is hamper by the trampling of their rights.




Lacius said:


> People's rights are in conflict all of the time, and some are indeed more or less important than others. Does Person A's right to play his or her stereo loudly outweigh Person B's right to not have to listen to Person A's loud music? Does Person A's right to free speech outweigh Person B's right to not experience mass panic when Person A falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded room? It's dangerous to dogmatically make absolute statements about rights. Everything has to be taken case-by-case.



Well the first issue that must be considered is whether or not it is a right. In the case of discrimination there is no right to not be discriminated against by basis of skin color or sexuality but there is a right to freely associate and also private property rights.

In cases however where there are both legitimate then the agressor is at fault.


----------



## pasc (Jul 1, 2017)

Hmm. How about we turn this around:

"Yes, they hacked it and tried to help Hilary... but it didn't help enough"

Good, my "j/k post" of the week is now estabilshed.

Bye


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> The issue is that you are assuming this when in his (and mine) view the opposite is true to some extent as the well being of the people is hamper by the trampling of their rights.


I don't care _why_ you value small government. I'm just acknowledging that you _do_ value small government. I'm also acknowledging that you value small government more than you value people's well-being and access to equal opportunity in numerous circumstances.



RevPokemon said:


> Well the first issue that must be considered is whether or not it is a right. In the case of discrimination there is no right to not be discriminated against by basis of skin color or sexuality but there is a right to freely associate and also private property rights.


The Fourteenth Amendment would like to have a word with you.

If the right to not be discriminated against for an immutable characteristic in cases such as job-hiring, housing, etc. were not a guaranteed right (depending on what you're looking at, it's not), I would argue that it should be. But, that's the difference between our worldviews.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2017)

@Lacius As expected, we're slowly spiralling into cartoon land where you have to take me through every possible, however unlikely scenario on a wonderful rollercoaster ride at the end of which I'm supposed to say that I'm against gay marriage so that you can mount your horse of social justice, call me a bigot and gallop into the sanctimonious sunset, because you clearly don't want an answer, you just want to assassinate my character with an absurd example. If you want to make a villain out of me, just do it, I don't care. I don't play those kinds of games. I've been verbose enough in my explanation, introducing more "what if's" until you get the answer you want to hear isn't productive.

The police force doesn't exist to enforce morality, it exists to uphold the law - that's two different concepts. The law doesn't exist to ensure that everyone conducts themselves in a decent manner, it exists to protect the rights of individuals. The police doesn't arbitrarily hold guns to people's heads, and if it does, it most certainly isn't supposed to. Violence is and always has been the last resort in police situations, otherwise the force would devolve into an instrument of tyranny of the state. It's in place to protect people's rights, not to infringe upon them. I do not equate pursuing criminals with a violation of people's rights - it's the criminals who initiate the hostilities and the government is obligated to punish them accordingly - that's what they're getting paid for. Criminals waive their rights to a large extent the moment they commit a crime - by doing so, they break the laws established in their society, so it's apt that the society punishes them via a institution specifically designed to pursue criminals.

Your examples of certain rights superceding others are equally straight out of a Looney Tunes cartoon. I don't know if it's even prudent on my part to address them, but I will very briefly. In your mind, Person A should be able to use the government as a big stick to threaten Person B with whenever something Person A does bothers them, in this case it's listening to a stereo. In my mind, Person A should grow a pair and ask Person B to turn it down a little and that people's taxes shouldn't be wasted on sending a squad car and two armed officers to invade someone's private property and forcibly turn the volume down. The local home owners can come together and determine the rules of engagement themselves, the government doesn't need to be a part of this agreement. The government is the last institution I would invite into a dispute between neighbours. Unless Person B is breaking the law, the police has no business harassing him just because someone gets triggered by music.

You also accuse me of valuing the concept of a small government over people's well-being, which is a bogus claim based solely on your own definition of well-being. To me, opposing an intrusive government is the definition of caring about people's well-being, so no, it's not "principle vs. good of the people", you're trying to make a moral argument to discredit mine, and it's not working.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> @Lacius As expected, we're slowly spiralling into cartoon land where you have to take me through every possible, however unlikely scenario on a wonderful rollercoaster ride at the end of which I'm supposed to say that I'm against gay marriage so that you can mount your horse of social justice, call me a bigot and gallop into the sanctimonious sunset because you clearly don't want an answer, you just want to assassinate my character with an absurd example. I don't play those kinds of games. I've been verbose enough in my explanation, introducing more "what if's" until you get the answer you want to hear isn't productive.


Don't blame me because you've just now realized the consequences of the positions you've taken. If you don't want to answer my questions because you've realized which positions you have to take in order to be consistent, that's your prerogative. I honestly don't blame you.



Foxi4 said:


> The police force doesn't exist to enforce morality, it exists to uphold the law - that's two different concepts. The law doesn't exist to ensure that everyone conducts themselves in a decent manner, it exists to protect the rights of individuals. The police doesn't arbitrarily hold guns to people's heads, and if it does, it most certainly isn't supposed to. Violence is and always has been the last resort in police situations, otherwise the force would devolve into an instrument of tyranny of the state. It's in place to protect people's rights, not to infringe upon them. I do not equate pursuing criminals as a violation of people's rights - it's the criminals who initiate the hostilities and the government is obligated to punish them accordingly - that's what they're getting paid for.


Don't blame me because your statement about governments forcing people to cooperate was overly broad.

I agree wholeheartedly that laws exist to protect the rights of individuals.



Foxi4 said:


> Your examples of certain rights superceding others are equally straight out of a Looney Tunes cartoon. I don't know if it's even prudent on my part to address them, but I will very briefly. In your mind, Person A should be able to use the government as a big stick to threaten Person B with whenever something Person A does bothers them, in this case it's listening to a stereo. In my mind, Person A should grow a pair and ask Person B to turn it down a little and that people's taxes shouldn't be wasted on sending a squad car and two armed officers to invade someone's private property and forcibly turn the volume down. The local home owners can come together and determine the rules of engagement themselves, the government doesn't need to be a part of this agreement. The government is the last institution I would invite into a dispute between neighbours. Unless Person B is breaking the law, the police has no business harassing him just because someone gets triggered by music.


You seem to have missed my point about rights entirely and projected some sort of law/police situation onto the scenario.



Foxi4 said:


> You also accuse me of valuing the concept of a small government over people's well-being, which is a bogus claim based solely on your own definition of well-being is. To me, opposing an intrusive government is the definition of caring about people's well-being, so no, it's not "principle vs. good of the people", you're trying to make a moral argument to discredit mine, and it's not working.


I'm well aware that you believe that small government is conducive to well-being, and I'm well aware that this is why you value small government. I specifically said that you value small government more than you value well-being in at least some circumstances:


Lacius said:


> I don't care _why_ you value small government. I'm just acknowledging that you _do_ value small government. *I'm also acknowledging that you value small government more than you value people's well-being and access to equal opportunity in numerous circumstances.*


Considering your views on discrimination, for example, what I bolded is objectively true.

You believe a government should do as little as possible. I believe that the government can and should do what it can to maximize well-being, particularly in situations where only the government can do so. You're alright with sacrificing some people's well-being in order to maintain consistency with your unsubstantiated small-government dogma. I am not.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Don't blame me because you've just now realized the consequences of the positions you've taken. If you don't want to answer my questions because you've realized which positions you have to take in order to be consistent, that's your prerogative. I honestly don't blame you.


I'm not blaming you for my own positions, I'm accusing you of proposing trap scenarios for the sole purpose of disrupting dialogue. You can draw all of the answers from what I already posted, you just want me to repeat myself for no reason.


> Don't blame me because your statement about governments forcing people to cooperate was overly broad.


Establishing rules of engagement is not a forcible measure. Having instruments that enact and protect the law isn't forcible at all either. It becomes unwarranted use of force when said instruments are used to trample on people's inalienable rights established in the founding codices of the country for the sake of some nebulous greater good, or just because of the government's fleeting fancy.


> I agree wholeheartedly that laws exist to protect the rights of individuals.


Well, that's something.


> You seem to have missed my point about rights entirely and projected some sort of law/police situation onto the scenario.


Are you surprised that I projected a law/police situation onto a conversation about the law and the police?


> I'm well aware that you believe that small government is conducive to well-being, and I'm well aware that this is why you value small government. I specifically said that you value small government more than you value well-being in at least some circumstances:
> 
> Considering your views on discrimination, for example, what I bolded is objectively true.
> 
> You believe a government should do as little as possible. I believe that the government can and should do what it can to maximize well-being, particularly in situations where only the government can do so. You're alright with sacrificing some people's well-being in order to maintain consistency with your unsubstantiated small-government dogma. I am not.


What you call well-being is what I call oppression. The moment you allow the government to arbitrarily suspend your rights for the benefit of another is the moment you willingly board the train towards an authoritarian monster. As my main man Ben Shapiro once said, "The fact that people found it ridiculous that their own democratically elected government could turn on them is the reason why we have ashes in Europe today". You might find it soothing that the government punishes the rich for being rich, rewards women and minorities for being born women and minorities and forces private citizens to exchange goods and services under the threat of violence, and you very well might consider those things to be measures towards everyone's well-being - I find it unsettling.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not blaming you for my own positions, I'm accusing you of proposing trap scenarios for the sole purpose of disrupting dialogue. You can draw all of the answers from what I already posted, you just want me to repeat myself for no reason.


I've only asked you questions I don't know the answers to. If I take everything you said literally and don't allow you to contradict yourself, these would be my predicted answers:

Scenario 1A: Yes, you would ban infertile people, old people, etc. from marrying. (Edit: The reason is in this scenario, you said you would ban marriage that was inconducive to the goal of reproduction).
Scenario 1B: Yes, you would ban discrimination by private businesses. (Edit: The reason is you said you would sign bills into laws based solely on public opinion polls).
Scenario 2: Yes, you would vote Yes on a proposition that bans opposite-sex marriage. (Edit: The reason is because this scenario is nearly identical to one you answered about same-sex marriage and how you would get rid of same-sex marriage if only to minimize the existence of legal marriage of any kind).
Am I right?


Foxi4 said:


> Establishing rules of engagement is not a forcible measure. Having instruments that enact and protect the law *isn't forcible at all* either. It becomes *unwarranted use of force* when said instruments are used to trample on people's inalienable rights established in the founding codices of the country for the sake of some nebulous greater good, or just because of the government's fleeting fancy.


You seem to be conflating *no force* and *warranted force*.

Which "inalienable rights" have I suggested should be trampled on?



Foxi4 said:


> Are you surprised that I projected a law/police situation onto a conversation about the law and the police?


We're having several conversations at once, so I don't blame you, but by going on about how the police exist to uphold the law, you didn't actually respond to anything I said about people's conflicting rights.



Foxi4 said:


> What you call well-being is what I call oppression.


Let's be clear here. What I call _well-being_ is probably what you call _well-being_. What I call _policy conducive to well-being_ is probably what you call _oppression_, and I would disagree with you.



Foxi4 said:


> The moment you allow the government to arbitrarily suspend your rights for the benefit of another is the moment you willingly board the train towards an authoritarian monster.


The government picks and chooses between conflicting rights all the time. Take my example of free speech vs. creating a public hazard.

In other words, governments very often restrict what people can do. Anti-nudity laws restrict my ability to streak at night in order to benefit other people from, presumably, becoming too infatuated with my good-looking body to function. The government chose their rights over mine. There is a fine line between this and what most people would call _authoritarianism_.



Foxi4 said:


> As my main man Ben Shapiro once said, "The fact that people found it ridiculous that their own democratically elected government could turn on them is the reason why we have ashes in Europe today".


Quotes like these remind me to not become complacent with Trump and his actual tendencies toward authoritarianism.



Foxi4 said:


> You might find it soothing that the government punishes the rich for being rich


Proportionally taxing income levels based on what proportionately affects them isn't punishment. It's fair, not to mention efficient.



Foxi4 said:


> rewards women and minorities for being born women and minorities


I would have to know what you're specifically referring to before I can respond, but I wouldn't argue that these groups are the most advantaged in society.



Foxi4 said:


> and forces private citizens to exchange goods and services under the threat of violence


If one chooses to have a business that serves the public, then that business needs to serve the public. That business gets all of the benefits of serving the public and also benefits directly from tax dollars that the public has spent (e.g. roads, protection, etc.). Businesses are subject to regulation by the government if they're going to serve the public and use public resources. A business that serves food to the public has to abide by regulation that makes sure the food isn't going to poison the public, for example. We decided as a country that a business' right to poison people does not outweigh the public's right to not be poisoned. A business' right to discriminate does not outweigh the right of a population to not be discriminated against.

Nobody is being forced to exchange goods and services. If one can't handle anti-discrimination laws, one doesn't have to exchange goods and services at all.

"Under threat of violence" is a buzz phrase you've already admitted is nonsense when we're talking about upholding laws.



Foxi4 said:


> and you very well might consider those things to be measures towards everyone's well-being - I find it unsettling.


I know you do. Nobody's perfect.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I've only asked you questions I don't know the answers to. If I take everything you said literally and don't allow you to contradict yourself, these would be my predicted answers:
> 
> Scenario 1A: Yes, you would ban infertile people, old people, etc. from marrying. (Edit: The reason is in this scenario, you said you would ban marriage that was inconducive to the goal of reproduction).
> Scenario 1B: Yes, you would ban discrimination by private businesses. (Edit: The reason is you said you would sign bills into laws based solely on public opinion polls).
> ...


Close. Yes, if marriage is supposed to be an explicit agreement between the state and the couple to produce offspring in exchange for tax benefits, unless the couple was unaware of their infertility at the time of signing said agreement, which is exactly what I meant by "calculated risk". The word "risk" entails an investment with an uncertain return. This is not the legal definition in the U.S. though, so it's a side note in the discussion. No, I would not ban any form of discrimination in any private business as the rules of employment are subject to a contract signed by two consenting parties (the employer and the employee), my job is only to oversee that both sides fulfil their sides of the bargain as well as ensure that the bargain itself is not in violation of the pre-existing laws, for instance that it doesn't entail slave labour. Also a no in the event of denial of service, however I may or may not lean on the side of personally boycotting the business depending on the reason for refusing service - "no shirt, no service" and "no service for negros" are two very different kinds of refusals, the former being reasonable, the latter being blatantly racist. No, I would not "vote to ban" same-sex marriage as in the example same-sex marriage hasn't been codified yet, so there's nothing to ban. I would, however, listen to the people and enact their will accordingly.


> You seem to be conflating *no force* and *warranted force*.


I don't.


> Which "inalienable rights" have I suggested should be trampled on?


The fourth ammendment, for one. If I have a cake that I don't want to sell and the government puts a gun to my head and then, for all intents and purposes, seizes control of my property by deciding what to do with it for me, forcing me to sell that cake to someone I would not willingly sell it to, it has trampled on my inalienable rights. I get to decide who I sell my property to, not the government. The government cannot and should not coerce a non-consenting party into a business arrangement, because at that point it's not business, it's eminent domain.


> We're having several conversations at once, so I don't blame you, but by going on about how the police exist to uphold the law, you didn't actually respond to anything I said about people's conflicting rights.
> 
> Let's be clear here. What I call _well-being_ is probably what you call _well-being_. What I call _policy conducive to well-being_ is probably what you call _oppression_, and I would disagree with you.


You are entitled to disagree with me or to fail to draw a conclusion from my answer.


> The government picks and chooses between conflicting rights all the time. Take my example of free speech vs. creating a public hazard.


You defined yelling "fire" in a public setting for the purposes of causing panic as free speech, not me. Free speech equals the freedom to express opinion without being restrained by the government. Yelling "fire" does not constitute expressing an opinion, so it doesn't constitute free speech. If it's determined that the action was illegal, it should be punished to the full extent of the law. Your argument was poor, and you probably knew that when you made it.


> In other words, governments very often restrict what people can do. Anti-nudity laws restrict my ability to streak at night in order to benefit other people from, presumably, becoming too infatuated with my good-looking body to function. The government chose their rights over mine. There is a fine line between this and what most people would call _authoritarianism_.


You never asked me if I approve of such laws. I don't mind you streaking - I'm not threatened by your genitalia, just don't catch a cold because I won't pay for your medical expenses.


> Quotes like these remind me to not become complacent with Trump and his actual tendencies toward authoritarianism.


He's a beacon of hope, a shining example for us all and a national treasure. Praise kek.


> Proportionally taxing income levels based on what proportionately affects them isn't punishment. It's fair, not to mention efficient.


There's nothing proportionate about having different tax brackets for different kinds of earners. Income tax is theft, it punishes people for working and thus discourages labour, but since it exists and I can't get rid of it (even though a value-added tax would be a better alternative), everyone should pay the same percentage of their income with no special treatment.


> I would have to know what you're specifically referring to before I can respond, but I wouldn't argue that these groups are the most advantaged in society.


Women win the majority of child custody cases and are the de facto recipients of the most child support due to a persistent bias in the court system, they are exempted from draft, they hold 100% of reproductive rights as they can choose to keep or abort their children without the consent of the father, they face lower standards for public service, for instance in the police force or in the army and, thanks to Affirmative Action, they are more likely to enroll in college, more likely to graduate and more likely to find employment. The case is very similar with many minorities - independent studies show that different ethnicities need to score differently in order to enroll to the same college.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco...n-college-admissions-nobody-is-talking-about/

If as a black American I can score 450 points less than my Asian friend and still end up in the same course because our Asian founding fathers saw it fit to enact Affirmative Action and help me out a "little bit" then I would call that Black privilege. We can't talk about a level playing field when your enrollment is not dependant on your scholastic achievements, but on the colour of your skin, specifically because some idiot in Washington figured that diversity quotas are a good idea.


> If one chooses to have a business that serves the public, then that business needs to serve the public. That business gets all of the benefits of serving the public and also benefits directly from tax dollars that the public has spent (e.g. roads, protection, etc.). Businesses are subject to regulation by the government if they're going to serve the public and use public resources. A business that serves food to the public has to abide by regulation that makes sure the food isn't going to poison the public, for example. We decided as a country that a business' right to poison people does not outweigh the public's right to not be poisoned. A business' right to discriminate does not outweigh the right of a population to not be discriminated against.


The idea that businesses exist to serve the public is fallacious - businesses exist to exchange goods and services between consenting parties. A business owner is not a public servant. I'm well-aware that rampant regulation stifles the operation of private businesses, what's your point? Besides, many companies don't even do business with the public - there are many industries in which companies only conduct business with other companies, not private individuals. If you base your argument on a premise that is untrue, it crumbles pretty easily. It's also ridiculous to assert that a business owes the government any form of servitude just because there's a road in front of it - the business pays taxes for that road to be there, it'd be odd if it *wasn't* provided with one.


> Nobody is being forced to exchange goods and services. If one can't handle anti-discrimination laws, one doesn't have to exchange goods and services at all.


Whether said laws should be on the books at all is another story.


> "Under threat of violence" is a buzz phrase you've already admitted is nonsense when we're talking about upholding laws.


If you don't think certain regulations are enforced under the threat of violence, try not following them.


> I know you do. Nobody's perfect.


That's why I turn a blind eye to your strong aversion to freedom.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2017)

@Foxi4 I was going to type a long response, but I think we're going in circles.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2017)

Lacius said:


> @Foxi4 I was going to type a long response, but I think we're going in circles.


We are. It's been nice talking to you again. You mean well and I get where you're coming from, we just have different means to get to similar goals and different principles to uphold. The truth is somewhere in the middle, that ties a nice bow on the whole exchange.


----------



## Kigiru (Oct 30, 2018)

Obviously not. The only reason why democrats are losing is because their loudest, most visible part is ruining their reputation. Nobody will vote for this kind of people and instead of crying about "russian bots" it would be better to take things that are happening seriously.

Like, there are actual morons that are calling for genocide on white people, are aggresive towards others for not agreeing with them and are doing everything to reduce freedom of speech. They are the only one to be blamed because they are creating bad reputation for left side. Trump is not winning because he's good, but because he stands against these people, is their complete antithesis.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 30, 2018)

That's a helluva thread bump, there.


----------



## Kigiru (Oct 30, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> That's a helluva thread bump, there.


ohh... i see.
Now i need to figure out why it shows me this thread as new one xD Derp.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 30, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> That's a helluva thread bump, there.


If it's one hell of a bump, why bump it further? It's been a full year, I'll close this thread for now, we can get back to the subject once the investigation reaches its conclusion.


----------

