The Refuge of the Toads

[katamari Damassi]

It might not be as funny when Trump fails to support NATO and lets his good buddy Putin run roughshod over Europe.

I actually agree with Trump on NATO. It's obsolete, and Europe needs to pay for its own defense.

[VickyCaramel]

I might get a lot of hatred for this comment, and I'm probably a smug fence-riding bastard, but I think that both the pro-Trump faction and the anti-Trump faction are highly exaggerating the impact of the Trump presidency. He very likely won't "heal" the US and he very likely won't cause the end of the world or of America. He'll more than likely be a mediocre to bad president. As I said his best quality is his isolationism. The last thing the world needs is more US support to the Saudis and the Salafis in the Middle East.

I know many are worried about Putin and I understand their concerns, especially for Russian indirect diplomatic influence, but I don't think he's nowhere near as bad as the Saudis. We don't have a massive Russian immigration with Russian clerics preaching Russian supremacy in the West and the establishment of Orthodox religious law.

And Putin is very unlikely to launch other military attacks now that he's guaranteed that he won't be blockaded. Not even the Soviets attacked Western Europe or places where there were American military bases, and Putin, horrible as he is in many matters, is less paranoid than the old Soviet nomenklatura. I think that while Trump isn't going to make anything Great Again we've dodged a bullet by not electing someone who was willing to establish a Salafi theocracy in Syria just to antagonize Russia.

People are underestimating Trump. I also think there is a lot of intellectual snobbery going on, people think he just bullshits his way into billions. Scott Adams is absolutely right, he is a master at the skills an entrepreneur learns, if not a genius. As long as he stays out of wars, (businessmen don't understand war) then the US will probably do okay.

Somebody like Trump wakes up in the morning and says, "Here's what I want to do. Bring me experts, tell me how we can make this happen". And then to get where he wants to go, he will bribe, bargain, charm, compromise... or move mountains. He will shout from the rooftops his goals, but won't tell you his methods or reasoning. He will just sell you the reason why this will be better.

I can practically guarantee you that he has had his eye on the presidency for at least 30 years and that he is completely sincere about making America great again, and creating a legacy for his name.

[johnself]

In Australia we vote using paper ballots and official lead pencils. The sort whose scratching a you can rub out.

I've never heard this discussed and suspect that's because we don't really give a fuck.

Same system over here: You get a slip by mail, you go down and get a paper ballot, mark it and put in a box. Result is in the same night as the vote is cast. This is a system that produced such major controversies as: "Is having candy present at the polling place in the color of only one of the parties considered a way to influence voters"?.

[Brive1987]

Checkmate if you are a retard.

Hillary supporters are retards.

I'm seriously tired of non-USAians treating this as some kind of lark. Imagine a cross of Rupert Murdoch + Nigel Farage + Jimmy Savile as your PM. Oh, teh lulz!!

Everyone is currently treating this as a lark because he is only elect and the lolz are superlative. We may actually see breakdown turn to suicide as inauguration approaches. In fact no one has expressly denied the notion that Niki's demise was a preemptive self-immolation.

Once he is in power we may have new data (as you switch to war with EastAsia). But until then .....

:popcorn:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... KB606_seqw

[BillHampReturns]

The CIA tells us that the DNC hacks were carried out with the intention of helping Trump. That's solid. From there you have to make the stretch that they also managed to install a virus in the Michigan ballot boxes to not count Clinton votes. From there you need to stretch even further that this was pulled of in other key states (because Michigan's electoral votes alone wouldn't make a difference), and finally you need to stretch and figure they did all this without anyone creating any sort of abnormality that could be used to justify an investigation. That's a lot of stretching.

Indeed that is a lot of stretching. What is more, I've read that a great number of people in traditional blue states simply didn't vote for president. They voted for senators, congress people, etc., but left the presidential field blank. Nearly 50,000 did this in areas in and around Detroit, which is traditionally what tips Michigan into the blue. I think what you saw here was a lot of disgust from traditional Democrats who wanted nothing to do with Hillary or any of the other candidates offered. It worked out in Trump's favor.

[John D]

I might get a lot of hatred for this comment, and I'm probably a smug fence-riding bastard, but I think that both the pro-Trump faction and the anti-Trump faction are highly exaggerating the impact of the Trump presidency. He very likely won't "heal" the US and he very likely won't cause the end of the world or of America. He'll more than likely be a mediocre to bad president. As I said his best quality is his isolationism. The last thing the world needs is more US support to the Saudis and the Salafis in the Middle East.

I know many are worried about Putin and I understand their concerns, especially for Russian indirect diplomatic influence, but I don't think he's nowhere near as bad as the Saudis. We don't have a massive Russian immigration with Russian clerics preaching Russian supremacy in the West and the establishment of Orthodox religious law.

And Putin is very unlikely to launch other military attacks now that he's guaranteed that he won't be blockaded. Not even the Soviets attacked Western Europe or places where there were American military bases, and Putin, horrible as he is in many matters, is less paranoid than the old Soviet nomenklatura. I think that while Trump isn't going to make anything Great Again we've dodged a bullet by not electing someone who was willing to establish a Salafi theocracy in Syria just to antagonize Russia.

You'll get no hate from me. Trump is a complicated guy. It is extraordinarily hard to know what he will do as president. It is super entertaining to watch.

A good friend of mine is all pissed off that Trump is not interested in daily intelligence briefings. My friend thinks this is a disaster. I am thinking... hey... Trump can find someone to read that stuff that is qualified. Maybe this is not so bad. I understand W. used to spend his entire morning going over intelligence info. Wow. Look how fucked up that was.

I think that Trump fundamentally wants to win. I also don't think his definition of winning is just earning more money. He has shown that he can earn money and he has moved on. He wanted to be a TV star.... and he pulled that off. He wanted to fuck tons of pretty women and he managed that as well. So, as president, I think what he wants is to "win". I think that means he wants to go down in history as being considered a winning president.

I laugh out loud at "The News Hour" on PBS right now. The talking heads are spinning in their seats and wringing their hands but nothing really sticks to Trump. Judie Woodriff can't even stay professional... she grins every time she even says president elect Trump.... and Hari Shrinevasen looks like he has shit in his pants. (and yes.... I probably spelled their names wrong).

All this buzz about the Russian hacker is great. Haha. Some a-hole in the CIA leaked half of a report about Russian hackers and everyone acts surprised. Comeon you fucking a-holes. Are you surprised Putin prefers Trump as president? Are you surprised Wikileaks is just a shill? The funny thing is that the leaks where not fake. There were real emails. Haha. So, is it the truth that caused Hillary to lose. Yep.... I think it is.

and they ask... why didn't someone leak shit on Trump. Well, everyone knows Trump is a total lying ass hole. There is nothing in a leak that would hurt him since every one knows he is a total actor. The one guy came out and showed that Trump didn't pay any taxes (possibly for years). That was a leak. and Trump said "That's cause I'm smart". All the pundits laughed. They thought... well... what an ass hole. No one will vote for him now. But, voters thought... "Oh yeah... that does make him smart. He didn't cheat on his taxes. He just paid what the governmenet said he should.... just like me."

(Russia stole the election by publishing the truth about American politics.... it is fucking comic)

So, maybe the guy will be awesome. Maybe he will be a disaster. Maybe he will just be meh. Anyone who is making strong claims about Trump really doesn't know what they are talking about, cause no one but Trump knows what he will do (and he may not even know himself).

[BillHampReturns]

I might get a lot of hatred for this comment, and I'm probably a smug fence-riding bastard, but I think that both the pro-Trump faction and the anti-Trump faction are highly exaggerating the impact of the Trump presidency. He very likely won't "heal" the US and he very likely won't cause the end of the world or of America. He'll more than likely be a mediocre to bad president. As I said his best quality is his isolationism. The last thing the world needs is more US support to the Saudis and the Salafis in the Middle East.

I know many are worried about Putin and I understand their concerns, especially for Russian indirect diplomatic influence, but I don't think he's nowhere near as bad as the Saudis. We don't have a massive Russian immigration with Russian clerics preaching Russian supremacy in the West and the establishment of Orthodox religious law.

And Putin is very unlikely to launch other military attacks now that he's guaranteed that he won't be blockaded. Not even the Soviets attacked Western Europe or places where there were American military bases, and Putin, horrible as he is in many matters, is less paranoid than the old Soviet nomenklatura. I think that while Trump isn't going to make anything Great Again we've dodged a bullet by not electing someone who was willing to establish a Salafi theocracy in Syria just to antagonize Russia.

People are underestimating Trump. I also think there is a lot of intellectual snobbery going on, people think he just bullshits his way into billions. Scott Adams is absolutely right, he is a master at the skills an entrepreneur learns, if not a genius. As long as he stays out of wars, (businessmen don't understand war) then the US will probably do okay.

Somebody like Trump wakes up in the morning and says, "Here's what I want to do. Bring me experts, tell me how we can make this happen". And then to get where he wants to go, he will bribe, bargain, charm, compromise... or move mountains. He will shout from the rooftops his goals, but won't tell you his methods or reasoning. He will just sell you the reason why this will be better.

I can practically guarantee you that he has had his eye on the presidency for at least 30 years and that he is completely sincere about making America great again, and creating a legacy for his name.

I agree that Trump is sincere about making American great again. Everything negative we hear about him is hyperbole from the SJW-types. Even on this board, you see a lot of the same tripe repeated without any real effort at intellectual discourse. I think his biggest challenge will be dealing with the political elite in both parties. They hate him, both GOP and DNC, and they are going to be an impediment to change. That said, Trump may eventually win them over, especially if American's show some real spine in the next election (2 years from now) and oust all of the Washington insiders and replace them with some real Americans. I'm tired of incumbents. There are no term limits for most offices, but we can do it ourselves with the vote. I think voting in Trump, a political outsider, was a good move for this country. Now we need to clean up the rest of the government.

[John D]

Here is the problem. THERE ARE NO PAPER BALLOTS. The machines are 100% electronic. Haha! There are a bunch of experts in the US that complained for years about the all electronic voting machines but local government went for the faster cheaper all electronic option. Haha. We are fucked.

I suspect that the problem comes from the manual process of logging each voter. A person must add each voter to a roster and confirm their identity. Then they are given a "electronic ballot" which really means they walk over to the computer and start pushing buttons. If one person is accidentally missed in the count or someone needs to start their electronic ballot again this might result in an accidental miscount. The problem in Michigan is that the number of electronic ballots does not match the number of people logged into the computer ballot system.

Thanks for the ground level view of the Detroit situation. I found this article that others here might find helpful.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/p ... /95363314/

Thankfully the solution to this whole mess going forward is that all Detroit has to do is buy new voting machines with paper ballots.

Interesting. I does sound like Detroit uses a paper scan-tron style ballot. This is good since it does have a paper copy of the ballot. I suspect that if the re-count had continued the courts would have counted all these paper ballots, even if the counts were wrong.

Perhaps this is a good warning shot and things will run better in the future.

[VickyCaramel]

All this buzz about the Russian hacker is great. Haha. Some a-hole in the CIA leaked half of a report about Russian hackers and everyone acts surprised. Comeon you fucking a-holes. Are you surprised Putin prefers Trump as president? Are you surprised Wikileaks is just a shill? The funny thing is that the leaks where not fake. There were real emails. Haha. So, is it the truth that caused Hillary to lose. Yep.... I think it is.

I don't understand what the fuss is about. The US has been caught numerous times spying on it's allies! You can bet your life the CIA is hacking the Russians, and the Russians are hacking the US. What exactly is new here?

Most of the Wikileaks came from a disgruntled DNC employee. There is more evidence for #Pizzagate than for Russian hackers dispute what the CIA say. Besides, Bush packed the CIA with political appointments, no doubt Obama had to do the same in order to oust Dubya's cronies, so I see no reason as to why they should be believed.

...and as you say, it was the truth, real emails.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

He's the kind of person who would fall in behind any movement if he found himself surrounded by it.

But clearly that's not what happened with Rubin, he changed his mind away FROM the movement he found himself surrounded by (i.e. his native fellow-liberals). That's the opposite quality of character to what you're imputing to him, it's the courage to break away from the herd.

And he still considers himself liberal, he's just been red-pilled to the SJW trance that lots of his co-politicals are still under, and he'd like his friends to wake up please.

In partial agreement with Mechano Kitty here. I don't know to what extent Rubin's own politics are influenced by guests, but he leaves himself open to being used by people looking to legitimise themselves to a liberal audience. Sam Harris did warn him about that danger. Tommy Robinson is a case in point. I must admit to being quite impressed with Robinson after his chat with Rubin. That changed after reading some of Robinson's tweets in which he came of as a bit of an abusive nutter. Rubin didn't bother to do much reasearch on the guy, obviously.

[VickyCaramel]

I agree that Trump is sincere about making American great again. Everything negative we hear about him is hyperbole from the SJW-types. Even on this board, you see a lot of the same tripe repeated without any real effort at intellectual discourse. I think his biggest challenge will be dealing with the political elite in both parties. They hate him, both GOP and DNC, and they are going to be an impediment to change. That said, Trump may eventually win them over, especially if American's show some real spine in the next election (2 years from now) and oust all of the Washington insiders and replace them with some real Americans. I'm tired of incumbents. There are no term limits for most offices, but we can do it ourselves with the vote. I think voting in Trump, a political outsider, was a good move for this country. Now we need to clean up the rest of the government.

I completely agree that will be the challenge. But he knows the art of the deal.

[Kirbmarc]

I might get a lot of hatred for this comment, and I'm probably a smug fence-riding bastard, but I think that both the pro-Trump faction and the anti-Trump faction are highly exaggerating the impact of the Trump presidency. He very likely won't "heal" the US and he very likely won't cause the end of the world or of America. He'll more than likely be a mediocre to bad president. As I said his best quality is his isolationism. The last thing the world needs is more US support to the Saudis and the Salafis in the Middle East.

I know many are worried about Putin and I understand their concerns, especially for Russian indirect diplomatic influence, but I don't think he's nowhere near as bad as the Saudis. We don't have a massive Russian immigration with Russian clerics preaching Russian supremacy in the West and the establishment of Orthodox religious law.

And Putin is very unlikely to launch other military attacks now that he's guaranteed that he won't be blockaded. Not even the Soviets attacked Western Europe or places where there were American military bases, and Putin, horrible as he is in many matters, is less paranoid than the old Soviet nomenklatura. I think that while Trump isn't going to make anything Great Again we've dodged a bullet by not electing someone who was willing to establish a Salafi theocracy in Syria just to antagonize Russia.

People are underestimating Trump. I also think there is a lot of intellectual snobbery going on, people think he just bullshits his way into billions. Scott Adams is absolutely right, he is a master at the skills an entrepreneur learns, if not a genius. As long as he stays out of wars, (businessmen don't understand war) then the US will probably do okay.

Somebody like Trump wakes up in the morning and says, "Here's what I want to do. Bring me experts, tell me how we can make this happen". And then to get where he wants to go, he will bribe, bargain, charm, compromise... or move mountains. He will shout from the rooftops his goals, but won't tell you his methods or reasoning. He will just sell you the reason why this will be better.

I can practically guarantee you that he has had his eye on the presidency for at least 30 years and that he is completely sincere about making America great again, and creating a legacy for his name.

Meh. I'm reserving my judgement on Trump's skills for now. He seems to be more of a con man than an entrepreneur from his track record (lots of his businesses were scams or semi-scams, from Trump Steaks to Trump University) but that doesn't have to necessarily be a bad thing, since politics is a tricky business. He's a shameless self-promoter, but that's what all successful politicians are. He's easy to change his mind, which can be a bad thing, but also a good quality: it just depends on who changes his mind. I have to admit this about him, he has a very successful tactic of making hyperbolic statements to get people mad and get less insane ideas to pass without too much opposition. He's basically a political troll. But can he actually make his trolling and dirty tricks work without wrecking the system? Is he more of a Ronald Reagan or more of a Richard Nixon? Or something else entirely? Only time will tell.

The only thing I hope, from what I've read, is that he'll likely stay out of Syria and stop giving assistance to the Saudis and the Salafis. Even if he failed at everything else this would be a good thing. Bernie Sanders and his clique are also in favor of this gradual disengagement from a pretty rotten alliance which has only brought trouble to the "West" in these last few years. The paradigm that whatever you do you shouldn't upset the Saudis has to end.

I can believe he genuinely wants to make America great again to create a legacy for his name. Can he do it, though? That's a really big question.

[Kirbmarc]

I agree that Trump is sincere about making American great again. Everything negative we hear about him is hyperbole from the SJW-types. Even on this board, you see a lot of the same tripe repeated without any real effort at intellectual discourse. I think his biggest challenge will be dealing with the political elite in both parties. They hate him, both GOP and DNC, and they are going to be an impediment to change. That said, Trump may eventually win them over, especially if American's show some real spine in the next election (2 years from now) and oust all of the Washington insiders and replace them with some real Americans. I'm tired of incumbents. There are no term limits for most offices, but we can do it ourselves with the vote. I think voting in Trump, a political outsider, was a good move for this country. Now we need to clean up the rest of the government.

I agree that a group of outsiders can be a good shakedown to a frozen system. But the people who Trump is nominating aren't really outsiders. He's nominated a former Goldman Sachs employee and a former Exxon exec, and both are companies whose lobbies have been powerful insiders in the last presidential terms.

[free thoughtpolice]

Trump is a loud mouthed salesman type that made enormous financial blunders that other people paid for. He is wealthy because he had money and contacts to start with and totally lucked out that the big banks didn't press him into personal bankruptcy. He totally fucked over customers, contractors, and shareholders and got them to pay for his mistakes.
If he fucks up in government as disastrously as he did with his bankruptcies he will cause a national and a worldwide recession. The financial crisis at the end of W's term cost a lot of people a lot of money, Trump could do even worse.
If you think only the SJW types are concerned about this clown you just haven't been listening. If you get a chance, listen to what fellow billionaires like Mark Cuban and Warren Buffet say about him, not to mention what the bigshot bankers that loaned him money and the dude that ghost wrote The Art of the Deal for him have said.

[Kirbmarc]

All this buzz about the Russian hacker is great. Haha. Some a-hole in the CIA leaked half of a report about Russian hackers and everyone acts surprised. Comeon you fucking a-holes. Are you surprised Putin prefers Trump as president? Are you surprised Wikileaks is just a shill? The funny thing is that the leaks where not fake. There were real emails. Haha. So, is it the truth that caused Hillary to lose. Yep.... I think it is.

I don't understand what the fuss is about. The US has been caught numerous times spying on it's allies! You can bet your life the CIA is hacking the Russians, and the Russians are hacking the US. What exactly is new here?

Most of the Wikileaks came from a disgruntled DNC employee. There is more evidence for #Pizzagate than for Russian hackers dispute what the CIA say. Besides, Bush packed the CIA with political appointments, no doubt Obama had to do the same in order to oust Dubya's cronies, so I see no reason as to why they should be believed.

...and as you say, it was the truth, real emails.

Even if a Russian hacker hacked the Clinton emails, the emails were real, not fake, so the only thing that the hacker would have done would have been to reveal some truths.

I'm pretty sure everyone is spying on everyone, and yes, it's not a surprise to me that Wikileaks has a pro-Russian bias (they've never published any Russian email or leaked document, for a start, and don't tell me that there isn't any interesting news about this or that there aren't any disgruntled Russian ministers employees). Also it's easy to see why Putin preferred Trump to Clinton. The man himself never hid his preference.

But the real issue is whether the published Clinton staff emails were genuine or not. And it seems like they were, so the Clinton staff has only themselves to blame for meddling with the DNC, repeating SJW drivel, not paying attention to the concerns of working class whites and for supporting the narrative that voters were "baskets of deplorables".

I would like to see also Trump's staff emails, and maybe Putin's emails, or Nigel Farage's staff emails, or Marie Le Pen's (I'd like to see who is funding who, for example). I know I'm not likely to get those emails from Wikileaks, but maybe someone else will set up a similar service to cover a niche which Wikileaks left untapped.

[free thoughtpolice]

[youtube][/youtube]

[VickyCaramel]

I might get a lot of hatred for this comment, and I'm probably a smug fence-riding bastard, but I think that both the pro-Trump faction and the anti-Trump faction are highly exaggerating the impact of the Trump presidency. He very likely won't "heal" the US and he very likely won't cause the end of the world or of America. He'll more than likely be a mediocre to bad president. As I said his best quality is his isolationism. The last thing the world needs is more US support to the Saudis and the Salafis in the Middle East.

I know many are worried about Putin and I understand their concerns, especially for Russian indirect diplomatic influence, but I don't think he's nowhere near as bad as the Saudis. We don't have a massive Russian immigration with Russian clerics preaching Russian supremacy in the West and the establishment of Orthodox religious law.

And Putin is very unlikely to launch other military attacks now that he's guaranteed that he won't be blockaded. Not even the Soviets attacked Western Europe or places where there were American military bases, and Putin, horrible as he is in many matters, is less paranoid than the old Soviet nomenklatura. I think that while Trump isn't going to make anything Great Again we've dodged a bullet by not electing someone who was willing to establish a Salafi theocracy in Syria just to antagonize Russia.

People are underestimating Trump. I also think there is a lot of intellectual snobbery going on, people think he just bullshits his way into billions. Scott Adams is absolutely right, he is a master at the skills an entrepreneur learns, if not a genius. As long as he stays out of wars, (businessmen don't understand war) then the US will probably do okay.

Somebody like Trump wakes up in the morning and says, "Here's what I want to do. Bring me experts, tell me how we can make this happen". And then to get where he wants to go, he will bribe, bargain, charm, compromise... or move mountains. He will shout from the rooftops his goals, but won't tell you his methods or reasoning. He will just sell you the reason why this will be better.

I can practically guarantee you that he has had his eye on the presidency for at least 30 years and that he is completely sincere about making America great again, and creating a legacy for his name.

Meh. I'm reserving my judgement on Trump's skills for now. He seems to be more of a con man than an entrepreneur from his track record (lots of his businesses were scams or semi-scams, from Trump Steaks to Trump University) but that doesn't have to necessarily be a bad thing, since politics is a tricky business. He's a shameless self-promoter, but that's what all successful politicians are. He's easy to change his mind, which can be a bad thing, but also a good quality: it just depends on who changes his mind. I have to admit this about him, he has a very successful tactic of making hyperbolic statements to get people mad and get less insane ideas to pass without too much opposition. He's basically a political troll. But can he actually make his trolling and dirty tricks work without wrecking the system? Is he more of a Ronald Reagan or more of a Richard Nixon? Or something else entirely? Only time will tell.

The only thing I hope, from what I've read, is that he'll likely stay out of Syria and stop giving assistance to the Saudis and the Salafis. Even if he failed at everything else this would be a good thing. Bernie Sanders and his clique are also in favor of this gradual disengagement from a pretty rotten alliance which has only brought trouble to the "West" in these last few years. The paradigm that whatever you do you shouldn't upset the Saudis has to end.

I can believe he genuinely wants to make America great again to create a legacy for his name. Can he do it, though? That's a really big question.

I just watched this which is pretty much mirrors my thoughts on him:-
[youtube][/youtube]

In answer to your accusation about him being a conman, I remember just 10 years ago that people here were still saying, "Never do business with Americans". Most cultures have business ethos which says something like, don't bite the hand that feeds you, be generous enough to make people want to do business with you, or no-one prospers unless he renders benefit to others. America was decidedly more cut-throat, although I understand they aren't as bad as they were. But my guess is that Trump was not untypically ruthless in his dealings because that's just his generation.
I laugh when people point out he has gone bankrupt several times as if it is a bad thing. Entrepreneurs cannot be afraid to fail. I knew a multi-millionaire (he built skyscrapers in the far east) who was screwed over by a Hong Kong bank on a property deal. He lost absolutely everything, I have never seen him so happy. He went out, borrowed a few million and within a few years had earned most of it back again. If you have the knowledge and the reputation you can do it fairly easily... at which point it stops becoming a challenge and you find they start meeting with people like Al Gore to try and save the world (yes that happened).

[Pseudomonas]

That should have been "small potato prostates..." Make sense now?

[youtube][/youtube]

[ROBOKiTTY]

Sargon loves him, and believes that the CIA is made up SJW's making up Russian influence in the election to install Clinton and establish the gynocracy.
So someone explain to me why he has a million subscribers?

Sargon is a smart guy and knows how to apply reason when he feels like it. He shares an ideological blind spot with a large number of people, and the narrative he's been pushing is riding on a tailwind in the Anglosphere. It's not surprising he has attained a large following. What's more surprising is hacks like MrRepzion (at 500k subs) and Armoured Skeptic (330k) having similar amounts of success. MrRepzion is unoriginal, uninsightful, and uninteresting, and Armoured Skeptic is basically a vastly inferior mainstream-ified copy of Logicked (80k), but people are hungry for anti-feminist/SJW commentators, so they'll gobble anything up, I guess.

I can practically guarantee you that he has had his eye on the presidency for at least 30 years and that he is completely sincere about making America great again, and creating a legacy for his name.

Well, Trump talked about running for president on Oprah 28 years ago.

[Sunder]

I hope the idiots who put up the Bush II "Miss me yet?" billboards have the presence of mind to bring them back in the next few years, as I think a ton of liberals might actually be prepared to say yes.

[deLurch]

[youtube][/youtube]

How can a writer be a "ghostwriter" if his name is specifically on the front page of the book. "Donald J. Trump with Tony Schwartz" You can't get better truth in advertising than that.

His quote "If Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes, I firmly believe it will lead to the end of civilization."

I can't think of a better display of election fervor than that. I just can't take what he said back then prior to the election seriously as he is hyperbolic in his statements. So do I believe this author when he calls Trump a sociopath? Or is he being hyperbolic due to politics again?

[katamari Damassi]

Sargon loves him, and believes that the CIA is made up SJW's making up Russian influence in the election to install Clinton and establish the gynocracy.
So someone explain to me why he has a million subscribers?

Sargon is a smart guy and knows how to apply reason when he feels like it. He shares an ideological blind spot with a large number of people, and the narrative he's been pushing is riding on a tailwind in the Anglosphere. It's not surprising he has attained a large following. What's more surprising is hacks like MrRepzion (at 500k subs) and Armoured Skeptic (330k) having similar amounts of success. MrRepzion is unoriginal, uninsightful, and uninteresting, and Armoured Skeptic is basically a vastly inferior mainstream-ified copy of Logicked (80k), but people are hungry for anti-feminist/SJW commentators, so they'll gobble anything up, I guess.

I started checking his videos sometime last year and remember liking themwell enough-though I don't remember why. I occasionally check out what he's saying but it seems like the last few months his videos consist of a recording of some SJW(let's say Cenk)saying something, and Sargon replying with "No, Cenk." "Are you some kind of idiot?" I really don't see his appeal.

[jet_lagg]

Even if a Russian hacker hacked the Clinton emails, the emails were real, not fake, so the only thing that the hacker would have done would have been to reveal some truths.

I've been shouting this at my liberal friends over and over again from the beginning. I saw someone liken the Democratic party to the boyfriend who gets caught cheating and wants to make the conversation about what his girl was doing digging through his phone in the first place. The analogy is perfect.

[deLurch]

I've been shouting this at my liberal friends over and over again from the beginning. I saw someone liken the Democratic party to the boyfriend who gets caught cheating and wants to make the conversation about what his girl was doing digging through his phone in the first place. The analogy is perfect.

In contrast, I would expect a similar hack of the RNC to reveal a similar level of play. Both systems needs to be nailed to the wall.

[VickyCaramel]

putin.jpg

(36.67 KiB) Downloaded 138 times

[jet_lagg]

I've been shouting this at my liberal friends over and over again from the beginning. I saw someone liken the Democratic party to the boyfriend who gets caught cheating and wants to make the conversation about what his girl was doing digging through his phone in the first place. The analogy is perfect.

In contrast, I would expect a similar hack of the RNC to reveal a similar level of play. Both systems needs to be nailed to the wall.

You're right, though we don't even need the hack to come up with comparable situations to what happened with Sanders. The Republican party has been perfectly open about how much they hate Trump.

[free thoughtpolice]

I can't think of a better display of election fervor than that. I just can't take what he said back then prior to the election seriously as he is hyperbolic in his statements. So do I believe this author when he calls Trump a sociopath? Or is he being hyperbolic due to politics again?

That was a bit over the top, however it was around the time when Trump was asking about why we (the US) hadn't been using nukes.
If you happen on additional interviews he has done he brings up observations about characteristic such as Trump's attention span and mental laziness/ sloppiness which has been proven accurate by Trump's behavior so far at least.

[Old_ones]

I might get a lot of hatred for this comment, and I'm probably a smug fence-riding bastard, but I think that both the pro-Trump faction and the anti-Trump faction are highly exaggerating the impact of the Trump presidency. He very likely won't "heal" the US and he very likely won't cause the end of the world or of America. He'll more than likely be a mediocre to bad president. As I said his best quality is his isolationism. The last thing the world needs is more US support to the Saudis and the Salafis in the Middle East.

I know many are worried about Putin and I understand their concerns, especially for Russian indirect diplomatic influence, but I don't think he's nowhere near as bad as the Saudis. We don't have a massive Russian immigration with Russian clerics preaching Russian supremacy in the West and the establishment of Orthodox religious law.

And Putin is very unlikely to launch other military attacks now that he's guaranteed that he won't be blockaded. Not even the Soviets attacked Western Europe or places where there were American military bases, and Putin, horrible as he is in many matters, is less paranoid than the old Soviet nomenklatura. I think that while Trump isn't going to make anything Great Again we've dodged a bullet by not electing someone who was willing to establish a Salafi theocracy in Syria just to antagonize Russia.

There is no reason to take Trump's isolationism seriously. He regularly gets into pissing contests over minor slights, and the man just got into it with China because he apparently didn't think the "one China" policy was that big a deal. The man is an erratic disaster when it comes to foreign policy issues. I hope everyone else in the world has a leader willing to be patient with a thick headed lout who likes to push buttons, because Trump isn't going to learn to think before he steps in shit. He's too "smart" for that. I don't think that means world war 3, which is probably hyperbole. I don't think most countries would be willing to jump into that, but if Trump starts trying to dick slap the wrong foreign leader, I could definitely see some kind of hostility or diplomatic crisis coming out of it.

As for this business about Trump being mediocre, I'd like to know what reason you have to think he'll outperform any president we've ever elected in our history. All of them had more experience than him with political office, and all of them had more stable personalities. When I look at Trump I see a lot of the same problems W had (incurious, cock-sure, a history of failed businesses) and a lot that he didn't have (like Trump's BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS problem with impulsive behavior). To me it would be very surprising if Trump was a better president than W.

[Service Dog]

Trump's meeting with Kanye West today is the funniest thing to happen ever in a very long time.

http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com/ ... 5_crop.jpg

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

I might get a lot of hatred for this comment, and I'm probably a smug fence-riding bastard, but I think that both the pro-Trump faction and the anti-Trump faction are highly exaggerating the impact of the Trump presidency. He very likely won't "heal" the US and he very likely won't cause the end of the world or of America. He'll more than likely be a mediocre to bad president. As I said his best quality is his isolationism. The last thing the world needs is more US support to the Saudis and the Salafis in the Middle East.

I know many are worried about Putin and I understand their concerns, especially for Russian indirect diplomatic influence, but I don't think he's nowhere near as bad as the Saudis. We don't have a massive Russian immigration with Russian clerics preaching Russian supremacy in the West and the establishment of Orthodox religious law.

And Putin is very unlikely to launch other military attacks now that he's guaranteed that he won't be blockaded. Not even the Soviets attacked Western Europe or places where there were American military bases, and Putin, horrible as he is in many matters, is less paranoid than the old Soviet nomenklatura. I think that while Trump isn't going to make anything Great Again we've dodged a bullet by not electing someone who was willing to establish a Salafi theocracy in Syria just to antagonize Russia.

People are underestimating Trump. I also think there is a lot of intellectual snobbery going on, people think he just bullshits his way into billions. Scott Adams is absolutely right, he is a master at the skills an entrepreneur learns, if not a genius. As long as he stays out of wars, (businessmen don't understand war) then the US will probably do okay.

Somebody like Trump wakes up in the morning and says, "Here's what I want to do. Bring me experts, tell me how we can make this happen". And then to get where he wants to go, he will bribe, bargain, charm, compromise... or move mountains. He will shout from the rooftops his goals, but won't tell you his methods or reasoning. He will just sell you the reason why this will be better.

I can practically guarantee you that he has had his eye on the presidency for at least 30 years and that he is completely sincere about making America great again, and creating a legacy for his name.

Trump doesn't bullshit his way into billions, he bullshits people into believing he has billions. O'Brien, the author of Trumpnation, estimated Trump's actual worth at around 150-250 million after quite a bit of digging. Trump sued him and lost.

The man is a pathological fabulist. He got his start with money from his family and his big break only happened because his father acted as guarantor for the 70 million loan he needed and because of his father's contacts. In fact he was practically just a front man with his father pulling the strings. Nobody would have touched him without his father behind him. He is so obviously obsessed with his image as super-rich, self-made man. It seems to be his only measure of self worth. The guy who wrote "Art of the Deal" for him is publicly warning that Trump is a dangerously emotionally stunted narcissist.

Hucksters in need of cash run upselling seminar scams like Trump University, not billionaire developers. Hucksters like Robert Kiyosaki, with whom Trump authored (lets pretend he actually had something to do with writing it) a book. The man is a walking personality disorder case study with a total disregard for the truth. He was practically slapping his dysfunction in everyone's face during the election campaign and yet here we are. Amazing. His handlers had better learn how to manipulate a narcissist, and quick, because he seems to think that he's qualified to be his own press secretary, via Twatter no less.

[Service Dog]

Until today, I was starting to worry that Trump's transition choices indicated he was losing touch with his base: trolls.

[johnself]

This documentary about Trumps golf course in Scotland gives some insight in how he interacts with and sees common working-class people:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1943873/

[KiwiInOz]

In Australia we vote using paper ballots and official lead pencils. The sort whose scratching a you can rub out.

I've never heard this discussed and suspect that's because we don't really give a fuck.

And we have democracy sausages.

[Keating]

In partial agreement with Mechano Kitty here. I don't know to what extent Rubin's own politics are influenced by guests, but he leaves himself open to being used by people looking to legitimise themselves to a liberal audience. Sam Harris did warn him about that danger. Tommy Robinson is a case in point. I must admit to being quite impressed with Robinson after his chat with Rubin. That changed after reading some of Robinson's tweets in which he came of as a bit of an abusive nutter. Rubin didn't bother to do much reasearch on the guy, obviously.

I think Rubin has the right idea for what he's trying to do. In Australia, Andrew Denton ran a similar interview program explicitly called 'Enough Rope', the idea being to give the interviewee enough rope to hang themselves, rather than explicitly trying to call people out or trap them. Rubin has publicly said this is his approach. I think you need a couple of different approaches across journalism, but the same interviewer typically can't do them all, without coming across as partisan or schizophrenic. Rubin is filling a hole that needs filling, but it is unreasonable to expect him to do all possible interview approaches.

As to Tommy Robinson, I really like and respect him. I think he is very working class, and that is reflected in his crassness, impulsiveness, and unpolished articulation. He does, however, clearly do his homework. The interview that sticks with me is when a reporter quoted passages of the Bible to him in an attempt to get him to condemn them as being from the Koran. He immediately spotted it and called the reporter out. Given the regular shit the British police pull on him, I'm not surprised at the way he presents himself. Luton, his hometown, is an Islamisised shithole, so his experience is valueable.

[Keating]

In Australia we vote using paper ballots and official lead pencils. The sort whose scratching a you can rub out.

I've never heard this discussed and suspect that's because we don't really give a fuck.

And we have democracy sausages.

I strongly believe we could eliminate mandatory voting and still get 98% turnout because of the sausages.

[Old_ones]

I hope the idiots who put up the Bush II "Miss me yet?" billboards have the presence of mind to bring them back in the next few years, as I think a ton of liberals might actually be prepared to say yes.

I would.

[KiwiInOz]

I agree that Trump is sincere about making American great again. Everything negative we hear about him is hyperbole from the SJW-types. Even on this board, you see a lot of the same tripe repeated without any real effort at intellectual discourse. I think his biggest challenge will be dealing with the political elite in both parties. They hate him, both GOP and DNC, and they are going to be an impediment to change. That said, Trump may eventually win them over, especially if American's show some real spine in the next election (2 years from now) and oust all of the Washington insiders and replace them with some real Americans. I'm tired of incumbents. There are no term limits for most offices, but we can do it ourselves with the vote. I think voting in Trump, a political outsider, was a good move for this country. Now we need to clean up the rest of the government.

I agree that a group of outsiders can be a good shakedown to a frozen system. But the people who Trump is nominating aren't really outsiders. He's nominated a former Goldman Sachs employee and a former Exxon exec, and both are companies whose lobbies have been powerful insiders in the last presidential terms.

Plutocracy ftw.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

In partial agreement with Mechano Kitty here. I don't know to what extent Rubin's own politics are influenced by guests, but he leaves himself open to being used by people looking to legitimise themselves to a liberal audience. Sam Harris did warn him about that danger. Tommy Robinson is a case in point. I must admit to being quite impressed with Robinson after his chat with Rubin. That changed after reading some of Robinson's tweets in which he came of as a bit of an abusive nutter. Rubin didn't bother to do much reasearch on the guy, obviously.

I think Rubin has the right idea for what he's trying to do. In Australia, Andrew Denton ran a similar interview program explicitly called 'Enough Rope', the idea being to give the interviewee enough rope to hang themselves, rather than explicitly trying to call people out or trap them. Rubin has publicly said this is his approach. I think you need a couple of different approaches across journalism, but the same interviewer typically can't do them all, without coming across as partisan or schizophrenic. Rubin is filling a hole that needs filling, but it is unreasonable to expect him to do all possible interview approaches.

As to Tommy Robinson, I really like and respect him. I think he is very working class, and that is reflected in his crassness, impulsiveness, and unpolished articulation. He does, however, clearly do his homework. The interview that sticks with me is when a reporter quoted passages of the Bible to him in an attempt to get him to condemn them as being from the Koran. He immediately spotted it and called the reporter out. Given the regular shit the British police pull on him, I'm not surprised at the way he presents himself. Luton, his hometown, is an Islamisised shithole, so his experience is valueable.

I don't trust Robinson. The tweets I referred to actually came across as more than crass. They were bigoted. It's just my impression, but he strikes me as someone who calculatingly presents an acceptable face to the media while slipping in a few distortions, and then shows his true colours when off camera. We only have his word for incidents that supposedly happened to him while imprisoned.

[katamari Damassi]

Another feminist own-goal: The fictional character Wonder Woman was appointed as an honorary UN Ambassador due to her status as a feminist icon. Feminists bitched that she's too white and skinny. The appointment has been rescinded.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if DC doesn't start darkening up WW, though they won't make her fat, or flat chested.

[Really?]

I hope you're sitting down, but the feminists are mad about a review of the new Star Wars film.

The relevant bit from the Hollywood Reporter review:

What the film really lacks is a strong and vigorous male lead (such as Han Solo or John Boyega's Finn in The Force Awakens) to balance more equally with Jyn and supply a sparring partner. None of the men here has real physical or vocal stature, nor any scenes in which they can decisively emerge from the pack in a way that engages audience enthusiasm.

Both [Diego] Luna and [Riz] Ahmed have proved themselves repeatedly in big-screen and television performances, but their characters never pop here, to the film's detriment. And given that Jyn is rather less gung-ho and imposing than was Ridley's Rey, there's an overall feel of less physical capacity on the part of the main characters.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review ... iew-955566

You'll notice that no one said the film shouldn't have its strong female lead. Feminists aren't very interested in equal representation, are they?

http://www.vox.com/culture/2016/12/13/1 ... characters

I've bolded a funny part of the above response:

In the very next paragraph, McCarthy draws a direct contrast between this supposed lack of “physical stature” with the Galactic Empire “on the verge of universal dominance,” as if Jones and her supposedly slight male co-stars like Luna and Ahmed — neither of whom happen to be white men, for what it’s worth — could never truly convey the necessary strength to match the Galactic Empire’s sneering bad guys (one of whom, as McCarthy points out, is played by a CGI version of the long dead actor Peter Cushing).

These people don't want to be happy.

Random crazies:

[CommanderTuvok]

Wow. So this is kinda weird. I am listening to Dinesh D'Souza on the Ruben Report. I am used to D'Souza debating Hitchens and other atheists (and losing). I assumed the guy was a total idiot. But... as long as he is not talking about religion he makes a lot of sense. I actually like this interview.

Just shows how dogma (religion, SJW politics, 3W femnism) has the ability to completely blind intelligent people.

[comhcinc]

I hope the idiots who put up the Bush II "Miss me yet?" billboards have the presence of mind to bring them back in the next few years, as I think a ton of liberals might actually be prepared to say yes.

I don't believe that W was elected the first time around, but I also don't think he stole the election etc, etc, etc. My point is I think he was only elected once which means he could have one more run.

W in 2000?

[katamari Damassi]

I hope the idiots who put up the Bush II "Miss me yet?" billboards have the presence of mind to bring them back in the next few years, as I think a ton of liberals might actually be prepared to say yes.

I don't believe that W was elected the first time around, but I also don't think he stole the election etc, etc, etc. My point is I think he was only elected once which means he could have one more run.

W in 2000?

I'm pissed that Obama talked Biden out of running in 2016. I wouldn't mind seeing John Kerry run again in 2020. The Clintons need to go away though.

[deLurch]

That was a bit over the top, however it was around the time when Trump was asking about why we (the US) hadn't been using nukes.
If you happen on additional interviews he has done he brings up observations about characteristic such as Trump's attention span and mental laziness/ sloppiness which has been proven accurate by Trump's behavior so far at least.

I missed that. Honestly during the month leading up to elections, I tend to ignore all the hype & media because the bullshit to noise ratio is too high.

I did a search on that and this is all I came up with.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-as ... ports.html

"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.

So we get this from a 2nd hand source with very little context. Is Trump asking about small tactical nukes? Or is was he discussing the M.A.D. doctrine with an expert looking to hear how the scenario plays out.

Do you have anything better or more informative.

[Old_ones]

Another feminist own-goal: The fictional character Wonder Woman was appointed as an honorary UN Ambassador due to her status as a feminist icon. Feminists bitched that she's too white and skinny. The appointment has been rescinded.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if DC doesn't start darkening up WW, though they won't make her fat, or flat chested.

They should give her a beard and a beer belly.

[VickyCaramel]

Trump doesn't bullshit his way into billions, he bullshits people into believing he has billions. O'Brien, the author of Trumpnation, estimated Trump's actual worth at around 150-250 million after quite a bit of digging. Trump sued him and lost.

The man is a pathological fabulist. He got his start with money from his family and his big break only happened because his father acted as guarantor for the 70 million loan he needed and because of his father's contacts. In fact he was practically just a front man with his father pulling the strings. Nobody would have touched him without his father behind him.

This is just such an ignorant thing to say. Every millionaire I know (and I know quite a few) is up to their eyeballs in debt, quite deliberately. Firstly, you don't pay tax on debt. Secondly, if your money is sitting in a bank, our your assets aren't being used as collateral, then they aren't working for you. You can be worth millions on paper, or millions in debt on paper... depending on who you are showing your papers too.

And virtually nobody who is super rich earned their money from nothing, it just takes too long. Trump is in the property business (in fact so are most retailers such as McDonald's). You borrow from banks or investors, buy property, or buy land and build property, and gamble that by the time it is time to pay back the bank, the value of that property has increased enough to cover it. In the meantime, the business you build there will at least earn enough to cover you year-to-year. If it earns big, that's just gravy.

Basically, all you have said is that Trump is good at getting people to invest in his ventures. The fact that his father started him off is not a negative, it just tells me that he was mentored from an early age by somebody who could guarantee 70 million.

Frankly your class prejudice is showing.

[CommanderTuvok]

I quite like (even if I don't completely trust) Rubin.
He does at least provide a space for people to present their cases - it's not perfect (but then I don't know what would be).

My only issue with Rubin is that he pretty much invites over guests that agree with my own biases & ideas to discuss them. I am not learning much if I am having my own preconceptions reflected back at me and validated.

Rubin has interviewed Milo, and shared a stage with him. That automatically means he his persona non grata for all the Baboons and regressive atheists/leftists.

[Billie from Ockham]

Wow. So this is kinda weird. I am listening to Dinesh D'Souza on the Ruben Report. I am used to D'Souza debating Hitchens and other atheists (and losing). I assumed the guy was a total idiot. But... as long as he is not talking about religion he makes a lot of sense. I actually like this interview.

Fixed it for you.

[HoneyWagon]

In Australia we vote using paper ballots and official lead pencils. The sort whose scratching a you can rub out.

I've never heard this discussed and suspect that's because we don't really give a fuck.

One problem is every state does it their own way, and even different ways in the same state. Many went digital, which caused a ton of problems. It was easy for hackers to alter results and some showed how to do it. And no paper trail for recounts if an error happens.

Where I live, it used to to be pencil on a ballot, now it is a little inker that we press into the ballot, so also a permanent mark, not digital.

Except for politicians that get kick backs from polling machine manufacturers like Diebold or politicians that want to hack the vote, I don't see the reason for these digital machines. I guess they should be quicker, but they seem to have issues constantly including not even working the one day they need to.

There is no technical problem with a paper ballot and a marking device, and we can all see them being recounted.

[comhcinc]

Since everyone else is Trumping.

I have maintain that I don't see Trump being a good president but I also believe our system is set up in such a way to be able to handle a batshit popluarist. Andrew Jackson comes to mind.

I think we are already seeing that many members in congress are getting ready to reassert their powers. That's a positive thing no matter who the president is.

Let's talk about some of the things Trump has done and what we know.

Trump took a call from Taiwan. If he has decided to change a long standing policy and has a plan I am fine with that in so much as that is his prerogative. If on the other hand he is doing it just because he doesn't know better then that is he being shitty at the job.

Trump has talked about wanting to spend a lot of time in New York at Trump Tower. That is him being shitty at his job for no other reason than the extra cost to the tax payers.

Trump is not getting daily security briefings. It was a scandal when W missed a couple (and it really was only 2 or 3 that he missed). This is being really shitty at the job. Penn was talking about this recent and made an excellent point. That the best thing in the world would be having a group of people whose job it is to brief you before you have to deal with something, and Trump is not using that.


So yeah is Trump the AntiChrist? No, this guy is
[youtube][/youtube]

But anyone praising him as some great leader is too busy drinking the kool-aid to actually pay attention to what is happening.

[comhcinc]

I hope the idiots who put up the Bush II "Miss me yet?" billboards have the presence of mind to bring them back in the next few years, as I think a ton of liberals might actually be prepared to say yes.

I don't believe that W was elected the first time around, but I also don't think he stole the election etc, etc, etc. My point is I think he was only elected once which means he could have one more run.

W in 2000?

I'm pissed that Obama talked Biden out of running in 2016. I wouldn't mind seeing John Kerry run again in 2020. The Clintons need to go away though.

I also wish Biden had run. I love me some Uncle Joe. I don't see him or Kerry or any Clinton running in 2020 I think they will all be too old and away from politics at that point.

The other day I stated that at this point I think Stone Cold Steve Austin is the democrats best bet. I was of course joking but I do think at this point they might need some very media savvy outsider to go up against Trump.

Stone Cold wouldn't be the worst president. At least he won't be in four years. ;)

[free thoughtpolice]

A good doc about Putin.
[youtube][/youtube]

[HoneyWagon]

https://www.facebook.com/events/1602984773337872/

I am assuming the recent media focus has created people that are funding this trip.
Video from this could be very interesting.

[HelpingHand]

One problem is every state does it their own way, and even different ways in the same state. Many went digital, which caused a ton of problems. It was easy for hackers to alter results and some showed how to do it. And no paper trail for recounts if an error happens.

Pet peeve time.

About eight years ago I was one of the technical folks at an IT Security consultancy that was brought in by a US state to do a deep audit of recently purchased electronic voting systems. Issues were found. Issues of the type that if a malicious actor has physical possession of the system for an extended period of time, it would be possible to break the encryption and make modifications such that undetectable changes could be made to votes. Weeks. For each device. Work on another system would not reduce the time needed to break another system. And it all could be made good by reflashing and reinitializing just before an election. Minutes per system.

Report made its way into the media. Widespread breathless reports of voting systems vulnerable to hackers! Democracy at risk! Evil Republicans deliberately giving money to evil corporation to enable voting fraud!

So take any stories you heard about issues with digital systems and hackers worth a grain of rancid shit. :hankey:

[Sunder]

I hope the idiots who put up the Bush II "Miss me yet?" billboards have the presence of mind to bring them back in the next few years, as I think a ton of liberals might actually be prepared to say yes.

I don't believe that W was elected the first time around, but I also don't think he stole the election etc, etc, etc. My point is I think he was only elected once which means he could have one more run.

W in 2000?

I'm pissed that Obama talked Biden out of running in 2016. I wouldn't mind seeing John Kerry run again in 2020. The Clintons need to go away though.

W couldn't run again. Term limits for the presidency limit time served to 10 years. If you were a VP and took over in the second year of your ex-boss's term, you'd only be able to run for an addition term because two would push you past the limit. If he resigned or croaked one year later, you could squeeze in a second run.

[comhcinc]

In Australia we vote using paper ballots and official lead pencils. The sort whose scratching a you can rub out.

I've never heard this discussed and suspect that's because we don't really give a fuck.

One problem is every state does it their own way, and even different ways in the same state. Many went digital, which caused a ton of problems. It was easy for hackers to alter results and some showed how to do it. And no paper trail for recounts if an error happens.

Where I live, it used to to be pencil on a ballot, now it is a little inker that we press into the ballot, so also a permanent mark, not digital.

Except for politicians that get kick backs from polling machine manufacturers like Diebold or politicians that want to hack the vote, I don't see the reason for these digital machines. I guess they should be quicker, but they seem to have issues constantly including not even working the one day they need to.

There is no technical problem with a paper ballot and a marking device, and we can all see them being recounted.

Actually the fact that there are so many different systems is a benefit insomuch that it makes it nearly impossible to hack a national election on a large scale. That isn't to say that there are not some really shitty ways to vote out there. Even with dealing with paper there are hanging chads to worry about.

Leo Laporte had a very informative show about this right before the election.

https://twit.tv/shows/triangulation/epi ... tart=false

[Billie from Ockham]

W couldn't run again. Term limits for the presidency limit time served to 10 years. {snip}

You are in the minority in understanding the 22nd-A. Even when they read it, so many people don't get it. So many say 8 years.

[comhcinc]

W couldn't run again. Term limits for the presidency limit time served to 10 years. If you were a VP and took over in the second year of your ex-boss's term, you'd only be able to run for an addition term because two would push you past the limit. If he resigned or croaked one year later, you could squeeze in a second run.

Oh no I have thought of this. The actual text reads:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

So hear me out. If no one was actually elected in 2000 that means W did not act as president during a term that some other person was elected.

Remember I am not 100% serious about this but if you are going to run with the idea, which many democrats are happy to state, that W wasn't actually elected in 2000. I'm just drawing that idea out to a logical, if absurd conclusion. I got some mileage out of it in 2008 and wish I got had an Elfwich around at the time to really fuck with people.

[HoneyWagon]

One problem is every state does it their own way, and even different ways in the same state. Many went digital, which caused a ton of problems. It was easy for hackers to alter results and some showed how to do it. And no paper trail for recounts if an error happens.

Pet peeve time.

About eight years ago I was one of the technical folks at an IT Security consultancy that was brought in by a US state to do a deep audit of recently purchased electronic voting systems. Issues were found. Issues of the type that if a malicious actor has physical possession of the system for an extended period of time, it would be possible to break the encryption and make modifications such that undetectable changes could be made to votes. Weeks. For each device. Work on another system would not reduce the time needed to break another system. And it all could be made good by reflashing and reinitializing just before an election. Minutes per system.

Report made its way into the media. Widespread breathless reports of voting systems vulnerable to hackers! Democracy at risk! Evil Republicans deliberately giving money to evil corporation to enable voting fraud!

So take any stories you heard about issues with digital systems and hackers worth a grain of rancid shit. :hankey:

Every election cycle, you can see reports where people were actually showing them choosing one candidate, and the other one being selected. Intentional bug or just crappy machines? I don't know. The attempt to get paper ballots for all machines was actually work, whereas you would think they would be automatic.
I have no idea if they can be hacked...but I assume anything electronic can be hacked or compromised.
And even if not intentional, they seem to break down more than pencils.

Here is a map of voting types by state
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_ ... t_by_state
You can see Michigan is paper. So if they have a ballot issue, then it is human error and there really is no excuse for it.

An unrelated issue is that some places will reduce the amount of polling places, making it harder for some people to get there and increasing the wait time. Not all states make alternates easy (though most do)

This map shows states in grey that do not have early voting and make you prove why you need an absentee ballot, and this includes Michigan.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- ... oting.aspx

So they seem to have trouble with in-person voting, yet kind of mandate that for all voters.

[HelpingHand]

Every election cycle, you can see reports where people were actually showing them choosing one candidate, and the other one being selected. Intentional bug or just crappy machines? I don't know.

The massive cynic that I am, I am inclined to write those tales off as 'meatbags be stupid as fuck'. Am unable to count the number of times I have watched someone work a piece of software, click the obviously wrong thing, get frustrated and loudly and unabashedly claim that the piece of shit software flat out does not work.

"Dude, you clicked on cancel on the save prompt. Then you clicked exit and when it prompted you that you had unsaved work, you clicked on quit anyway." "NO I DID NOT!!!!111"

"What does it say?" "Nothing." "What does it say?" "Nothing." "Ok, let's go check..." "Hold on, let me clear these 'the selected com port is unavailable' messages off my screen."

Hell, I have a supposedly 'Senior' co worker who got trapped in a ps | grep loop trying to kill a process. Even when explained to him, he kept swearing the original process was still coming back because 'he saw it' in the process list. Yes, this man makes over $120,000. And this is not an isolated brain fart. Continuous track record of stupid.

Hell, guess that argues against electronic voting. And paper voting. All things considered, way too high a percentage of the electorate are fundamentally incapable of voting at a level higher than a tic-tac-toe playing chicken.

I have no idea if they can be hacked...but I assume anything electronic can be hacked or compromised.
And even if not intentional, they seem to break down more than pencils.

And if someone counting takes every third ballot that has a lot of the wrong party marked and tosses it into the shredder? Big advantage of electronic, if done right, is that there is a continuous integrity trail of all the cast ballots. There is no way for even a team of collaborating election workers to alter or disappear votes short of dropping an entire machine into the river and pretending it never existed.