In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 05 2016 13:45 Doodsmack wrote: Combine this with Trump Model Management using illegal workers, and Trump's construction projects using illegal and/or seasonal foreign workers. On even his signature issue, Trump is a fraud in his actions.
He has given us no reason to believe he would be any better as a politician than he is in his business and personal lives. A vote for Trump is a vote for myopic political bias before country.
Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the country, according to detailed accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents from 20 years ago provided to The Associated Press.
to be fair, she did take a job that no american woman would really want.
also looks like nevada is pretty safely dem. so ya'll can adjust your "so you're saying there's a chance!" maps accordingly. apparently something like 80% of the hispanic early voters were supposed to be "low propensity".
On November 05 2016 13:38 plasmidghost wrote: How good is Reuters polls? Their new poll has Hillary ahead by 5, which sounds good, but yesterday it was +7. I really need to stop obsessing over these
Even the same polling outfitter can get random variations due to differences in sampling. Polling aggregators are much stronger due to the increase in sample size you get by combining multiple polls. I would recommend the Princeton Election Consortium run by Sam Wang over 538 as his model is purely state poll based.
Only problem is that state polls aren't independent. If the national results are off by 2 percent that usually means that 2 percent of votes spread pretty evenly across the country leaned more towards one candidate than another. Makes perfect sense to consider national polls as a variable too.
I've heard that a lot of Dems vote early and a lot of GOP vote on election day, plus I've read quite a few articles saying that early voting is very rarely a good indicator of final results
So... Anti-establishment. Because people like you think there's something wrong with society and the elites and Hillary is the pinnacle of elites keeping themselves in power while pandering to the commoners. All of that would make sense if like, you thought the world is broken and and you think Hillary doesn't do good things because she wants to do good but as an act to pretend to be good so the common folk will vote for her. I mean my favourite author GRRM says he wouldn't vote Trump, so I think my opinion is validated as well.
I've heard that a lot of Dems vote early and a lot of GOP vote on election day, plus I've read quite a few articles saying that early voting is very rarely a good indicator of final results
Really? I would have thought the opposite would be true.
On November 05 2016 15:39 Blisse wrote: So... Anti-establishment. Because people like you think there's something wrong with society and the elites and Hillary is the pinnacle of elites keeping themselves in power while pandering to the commoners. All of that would make sense if like, you thought the world is broken and and you think Hillary doesn't do good things because she wants to do good but as an act to pretend to be good so the common folk will vote for her. I mean my favourite author GRRM says he wouldn't vote Trump, so I think my opinion is validated as well.
Yeah we do. Actually only 1 thing. The fact (?) that 1% holds 90% of wealth. If that was a bit more fair distribution, I would be pro establishment.
EDIT: From the Zizek video; he nailed exactly why I want Trump to win and why I am prepared to look past his flaws.
One of the people I admire most in philosophy, even if he is a Marxist, sums up what I and a lot of other Americans see in Trump
While I don't want to see a Trump presidency, I really do hope that the Trump phenomenon (NOT the man himself) will somehow help in making some adjustments in the US election process with special regards to the two parties and the roles that money and the various forms of media play in it all. You know, sometime before the Trump supporters and the like actually feel so cornered that they will pick up arms (whether that would be sometime this decade or the next)
On November 05 2016 15:39 Blisse wrote: So... Anti-establishment. Because people like you think there's something wrong with society and the elites and Hillary is the pinnacle of elites keeping themselves in power while pandering to the commoners. All of that would make sense if like, you thought the world is broken and and you think Hillary doesn't do good things because she wants to do good but as an act to pretend to be good so the common folk will vote for her. I mean my favourite author GRRM says he wouldn't vote Trump, so I think my opinion is validated as well.
Yeah we do. Actually only 1 thing. The fact (?) that 1% holds 90% of wealth. If that was a bit more fair distribution, I would be pro establishment.
EDIT: From the Zizek video; he nailed exactly why I want Trump to win and why I am prepared to look past his flaws.
Plenty of dems feel the same way, I mean that was a gigantic part of bernies appeal, being anti-establishment. Unfortunately, many Bernie supporters don't value this above Trump's many other faults and policies. Bernie felt like a uniter, and trump a divider.
On November 05 2016 15:39 Blisse wrote: So... Anti-establishment. Because people like you think there's something wrong with society and the elites and Hillary is the pinnacle of elites keeping themselves in power while pandering to the commoners. All of that would make sense if like, you thought the world is broken and and you think Hillary doesn't do good things because she wants to do good but as an act to pretend to be good so the common folk will vote for her. I mean my favourite author GRRM says he wouldn't vote Trump, so I think my opinion is validated as well.
Yeah we do. Actually only 1 thing. The fact (?) that 1% holds 90% of wealth. If that was a bit more fair distribution, I would be pro establishment.
EDIT: From the Zizek video; he nailed exactly why I want Trump to win and why I am prepared to look past his flaws.
Plenty of dems feel the same way, I mean that was a gigantic part of bernies appeal, being anti-establishment. Unfortunately, many Bernie supporters don't value this above Trump's many other faults and policies. Bernie felt like a uniter, and trump a divider.
Some of us are also able to see how incredibly obvious it is that Trump won't do anything to help with this specific situation...
On November 05 2016 15:39 Blisse wrote: So... Anti-establishment. Because people like you think there's something wrong with society and the elites and Hillary is the pinnacle of elites keeping themselves in power while pandering to the commoners. All of that would make sense if like, you thought the world is broken and and you think Hillary doesn't do good things because she wants to do good but as an act to pretend to be good so the common folk will vote for her. I mean my favourite author GRRM says he wouldn't vote Trump, so I think my opinion is validated as well.
Yeah we do. Actually only 1 thing. The fact (?) that 1% holds 90% of wealth. If that was a bit more fair distribution, I would be pro establishment.
EDIT: From the Zizek video; he nailed exactly why I want Trump to win and why I am prepared to look past his flaws.
Plenty of dems feel the same way, I mean that was a gigantic part of bernies appeal, being anti-establishment. Unfortunately, many Bernie supporters don't value this above Trump's many other faults and policies. Bernie felt like a uniter, and trump a divider.
Some of us are also able to see how incredibly obvious it is that Trump won't do anything to help with this specific situation...
This... like really? Are people really counting on a guy who literally spent a life exploiting economical inequality to do anything different? I guess he could be so bad that he would single-handedly change the course of public momentum.... so there is that.
On November 05 2016 15:16 plasmidghost wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4vHSiotAFA One of the people I admire most in philosophy, even if he is a Marxist, sums up what I and a lot of other Americans see in Trump
Well put on the invisible political rules. And of course taking the startling position that the election of Trump is not the birth of fascism. I'm far less optimistic on the enduring effects of shaking up the system. Interesting video.
On November 05 2016 15:39 Blisse wrote: So... Anti-establishment. Because people like you think there's something wrong with society and the elites and Hillary is the pinnacle of elites keeping themselves in power while pandering to the commoners. All of that would make sense if like, you thought the world is broken and and you think Hillary doesn't do good things because she wants to do good but as an act to pretend to be good so the common folk will vote for her. I mean my favourite author GRRM says he wouldn't vote Trump, so I think my opinion is validated as well.
Yeah we do. Actually only 1 thing. The fact (?) that 1% holds 90% of wealth. If that was a bit more fair distribution, I would be pro establishment.
EDIT: From the Zizek video; he nailed exactly why I want Trump to win and why I am prepared to look past his flaws.
Plenty of dems feel the same way, I mean that was a gigantic part of bernies appeal, being anti-establishment. Unfortunately, many Bernie supporters don't value this above Trump's many other faults and policies. Bernie felt like a uniter, and trump a divider.
Some of us are also able to see how incredibly obvious it is that Trump won't do anything to help with this specific situation...
This... like really? Are people really counting on a guy who literally spent a life exploiting economical inequality to do anything different? I guess he could be so bad that he would single-handedly change the course of public momentum.... so there is that.
As Zizek said, it doesnt matter what Trump does as president, him getting elected is a big slap to the current political process and the "establishment" will be forced to rethink their position and policies.
On November 05 2016 15:16 plasmidghost wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4vHSiotAFA One of the people I admire most in philosophy, even if he is a Marxist, sums up what I and a lot of other Americans see in Trump
He is falling for simple conspiracy theories like so many others right now. I am simply amazed how people are incapable of looking through even the crudest propaganda. Everything you claim that the "establishment" does trump will - judging by what he has said and done - do on a much bigger scale. Do you think trump will trade favors less than anyone else? Do you think he will be less corrupt? Is he less money hungry or greedy than any other politician? Does he care anymore about regular people and following the law than any other politician? He is selfish hatefull, corrupt and his only political message is fear and hatred.
On November 05 2016 15:39 Blisse wrote: So... Anti-establishment. Because people like you think there's something wrong with society and the elites and Hillary is the pinnacle of elites keeping themselves in power while pandering to the commoners. All of that would make sense if like, you thought the world is broken and and you think Hillary doesn't do good things because she wants to do good but as an act to pretend to be good so the common folk will vote for her. I mean my favourite author GRRM says he wouldn't vote Trump, so I think my opinion is validated as well.
Yeah we do. Actually only 1 thing. The fact (?) that 1% holds 90% of wealth. If that was a bit more fair distribution, I would be pro establishment.
EDIT: From the Zizek video; he nailed exactly why I want Trump to win and why I am prepared to look past his flaws.
Plenty of dems feel the same way, I mean that was a gigantic part of bernies appeal, being anti-establishment. Unfortunately, many Bernie supporters don't value this above Trump's many other faults and policies. Bernie felt like a uniter, and trump a divider.
Some of us are also able to see how incredibly obvious it is that Trump won't do anything to help with this specific situation...
This... like really? Are people really counting on a guy who literally spent a life exploiting economical inequality to do anything different? I guess he could be so bad that he would single-handedly change the course of public momentum.... so there is that.
As Zizek said, it doesnt matter what Trump does as president, him getting elected is a big slap to the current political process and the "establishment" will be forced to rethink their position and policies.
What makes you think that the "establishment" rethinking their policies will be good for you or anybody?
If Trump does bad things to the US, and the "establishment" learns from the election of Trump that doing bad things to the US (potentially for one's own benefit) is perfectly fine as long as you appeal to the lowest common denominator, which is a course of events that seems totally plausible to me, then I don't want them to have that rethink.
I certainly don't see them learning the lesson that they should govern in the best interests of the little man from Trump's rise, since it's sure as hell not what's bringing him success.
(Also, there are plenty of things which Trump could do that would "matter" by any possible reasonable metric which you choose to name.)
Previously, the topic of "which five foreign agencies allegedly hacked into Hillary's server" came up. I found this article just now.
Hillary Clinton's private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators.
The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has found evidence of attempted intrusions into Clinton's server in 2013 and 2014, according to a letter Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent Monday to a Florida-based security firm tasked with protecting the hardware.
The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton's sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says.
The Associated Press first reported the news.
The attempted security breaches and apparent gaps in protection raise further questions about the level of security Clinton used to prevent malicious intrusions from breaching her network. The FBI is currently probing whether her rare email arrangement at State — exclusively using her own personal server rather than a State.gov account — ever put national security at risk. The State Department has now classified more than 400 Clinton emails that were stored on that hardware, though Clinton's team notes they were not marked classified at the time.
The last batch of Clinton's emails released by the State Department under a court order in a Freedom of Information Act suit showed that Clinton received at least five emails from hackers linked to Russia. If Clinton opened attachments in the emails, her account and server could have been vulnerable to hacking, although it is unclear if she did so.
Looks like America was betrayed by its so-called allies in SK/Germany, who had the gall to try to hack into her private email server. How dare they! And how dare Trump ask Russia for those files instead of our esteemed allies?
More seriously, the previous argument of "if anything, Hillary's server kept those emails safe from the otherwise-hacked State Dept" isn't really doing well. Looks more likely that the State Dept is bad at cybersecurity and so is Hillary.
Trump willing shows that the southern strategy still works. That the GOP can be more openly racist/mycologist and still win, In what world would it send a signal that they need to rethink their position?
Trump is the culmination of their strategy. Him winning would validate everything they have done for the last 50 years.
And what signal would it send the Democrats? Be more racist?
All it does is show that progress is a lot further back then we all would like to think.
On November 05 2016 20:05 LegalLord wrote: Previously, the topic of "which five foreign agencies allegedly hacked into Hillary's server" came up. I found this article just now.
Hillary Clinton's private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators.
The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has found evidence of attempted intrusions into Clinton's server in 2013 and 2014, according to a letter Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent Monday to a Florida-based security firm tasked with protecting the hardware.
The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton's sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says.
The Associated Press first reported the news.
The attempted security breaches and apparent gaps in protection raise further questions about the level of security Clinton used to prevent malicious intrusions from breaching her network. The FBI is currently probing whether her rare email arrangement at State — exclusively using her own personal server rather than a State.gov account — ever put national security at risk. The State Department has now classified more than 400 Clinton emails that were stored on that hardware, though Clinton's team notes they were not marked classified at the time.
The last batch of Clinton's emails released by the State Department under a court order in a Freedom of Information Act suit showed that Clinton received at least five emails from hackers linked to Russia. If Clinton opened attachments in the emails, her account and server could have been vulnerable to hacking, although it is unclear if she did so.
Looks like America was betrayed by its so-called allies in SK/Germany, who had the gall to try to hack into her private email server. How dare they! And how dare Trump ask Russia for those files instead of our esteemed allies?
More seriously, the previous argument of "if anything, Hillary's server kept those emails safe from the otherwise-hacked State Dept" isn't really doing well. Looks more likely that the State Dept is bad at cybersecurity and so is Hillary.
Actually, it's doing just as well as before, considering there is still no evidence that her account and server were breached. It's possible they were and it's possible they weren't, while we know for a fact that the unclassified system of the State Dept was hacked.
In other news, here's an interesting piece by Kurt Eichenwald on Russian efforts to influence the US election: click here (he relies a lot on anonymous source from Western intelligence services, so some of it does have to be taken with a grain of salt).
EPT
