The 2016 US General Election

[Wooglin]

Earth to Wooglin: Please clarify.

Just the usual retort when you ruin perfectly good GW rhetoric with some facts. I was being facetious, of course.

[YellowFever]

So in the last week we discovered that JAD is a denier that likes to post pedobears and advocated illegal downloading of pirated software.

The image I have of one of the person I admire the most on this forum has been shattered.

I need my safe space....

[Chunder]

So, Bush forces the CIA to lie to our allies and to congress for the sole purpose of launching an unnecessary war of aggression. Congressional and Senate GOPer Benghazi investigations disbelieve Intelligence reports. Trump doesn't want Intelligence briefings, and doesn't believe what they tell him.

Which party doesn't trust the intelligence community?

If you want to take it back to 2003 or better still 2002, that's fine by me. You're a man of the world - why don't you look up the figures on just how much we i.e the general public of the entirety of western civilisation outside the U.S believed those claims. We didn't. Members of the intelligence community resigned publicly. Politicians and intel don't mix. Trump is the embodiment of that mistrust or at least channeling that perception back to the people who voted for him. Intel communities belong unseen. One could argue that it had an effect on the length of time it took Obama to launch the Osama raid. Credibility is everything. Whilst what happens back in 2002 hasn't bearing on today, the lessons still exist. Intelligence does not belong in the public domain. It becomes a theatrical. That doesn't actually mean that Trump would literally not believe intel - infact i'd call that an absurd allegation given the prominence of Generals in key positions in his Administration, or his role in business.

What leads me to say that is that our own institutions get hacked from time to time and the political reporting on the briefing from such hacking invariably gets slanted into something not correct. My reading of such events like Sony, ABS, and others is that hacking can't be reliably pin pointed, readily leads itself to breadcrumbing for appearances, and is exceptionally open to forgery in technique, even ruse. This isn't some right wing conspiracy of discredit, it's readily available in tech journals. Of course at the end of all of this is mind you lies the connect that is readily being made in some of the most prominent paper op - ed's that such groups lie in Russia, that such groups undertook such hacking as a state sponsor, i.e received directive, help, and abetted by the Russians. It's like firing a projectile for 30km. Your area of probability hit is pretty large - Put all your groups who would have a motive for such hacking and my bet is there are more than just Kremlin operatives.

Make no mistake there are any amount of people who don't like Trump, from most of the Newspapers - to members of Congress, to bias appointees, ready the channel their ways through a pliant media who, at face level have journalistic standards and source information that would make a year 10 History essay student ashamed. They too have motive, if they are the conduit of information i'd be extremely concerned and never likely to believe it. The basic question stands - on what universe is it O.K. to threaten state level action based on alleged hacking by an alleged nation, by a president on a private entity? However, do nothing, say nothing on an actual security threat of an international defense program? Probably any number of reasons, that should most likely be applied across the board.

The biggest lie of all - the Russians didn't hack your election. They (if it was indeed they) hacked the DNC. Too bad, so sad. Time for all the major publications to run a front page apology, and an apology under every op ed article for the next year (huffpo style) that they ultimately sought to mislead the public towards the Russians actually hacking E-voting - because they have an unfathomly stupid self ego interest culture virtue signal loop.

[YellowFever]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ults.html?_r=0


Tracking the
Electoral College Vote

By KIERSTEN SCHMIDT and WILSON ANDREWS UPDATED 6:00 P.M. ET


We’re keeping a tally as members of the Electoral College vote on Monday to elect Donald J. Trump to the presidency. Six electors voted for someone other than their party’s nominee, tied with the 1808 election for the most ever. RELATED ARTICLE

Of 306 electors pledged to vote for Donald J. Trump
304 voted for him
2 voted for someone else
Of 232 electors pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton
224 have voted for her so far
4 voted for someone else

State Pledged to Voted for
Texas Trump Ron Paul
Texas Trump John Kasich
Washington Clinton Colin Powell
Washington Clinton Colin Powell
Washington Clinton Colin Powell
Washington Clinton Faith Spotted Eagle

In addition, three Democratic electors, in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, initially declined to vote for Mrs. Clinton. Two ended up changing their vote, and one was replaced by an alternate.
Electors are not required by the Constitution to vote for a particular candidate. Some states and parties require their electors to pledge to vote for a candidate and may fine or replace an elector who breaks their pledge.

It is rare for more than one elector to vote against their party’s pledged candidate, but it has happened on a few occasions.

In 1808, six New York electors from the Democratic-Republican Party refused to vote for James Madison and instead voted for the party’s vice-presidential candidate, George Clinton.

The last time an elector voted for a candidate from another party was in 1972, when a Republican from Virginia voted for the Libertarian candidate, John Hospers, instead of the eventual winner, Richard M. Nixon. A single elector has refused to vote for the party’s presidential candidate in 11 elections.

[JAD_333]

"The SPO’s (special prosecutor office) unhindered operations are crucial to ensuring accountability for possible wrongdoing related to the wiretaps, and for moving the country beyond the current crisis." - https://macedonia.usembassy.gov/spee...t05182016.html

"In a statement read out by U.S. ambassador Jess Baily, the envoys criticised Skopje's failure to address the "many allegations of government wrongdoing arising from the disclosures" published by opposition leader Zoran Zaev."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ma...0NW1X020150511

Dok:

Thanks for the sources. However I don't see any reference in the US ambassador's statement or in the article that show he condoned the wiretaps. Quoting from your original post, you said:

"The US response (via the Embassy here) was: "Look what's on the tapes, not how the opposition got them". It happened under Obama administration, so I guess Karma is really a bitch, eh?

It seems you created the quote to make a point, which is fine, as long as it captures the sense of what the guy actually said. I don't think it does in this case, but obviously he didn't condemn the wiretapping, and maybe he should have. In any case, they came from a whistle blower within the government which is altogether different than from hacking by a foreign government.

[JAD_333]

Just the usual retort when you ruin perfectly good GW rhetoric with some facts. I was being facetious, of course.

Thanks. Now all I have to do is figure out what GW means. :)

[JAD_333]

So in the last week we discovered that JAD is a denier that likes to post pedobears and advocated illegal downloading of pirated software.

The image I have of one of the person I admire the most on this forum has been shattered.

I need my safe space....

A man of conscience has nowhere to hide.

But no mind. Let daddy fix you a hot toddy and bring you your teddy bear to hug.

In the meantime, I'm looking for a quote from Trump where he actually asks Russia to hack Hillary's whatever. I see headlines everywhere that say so, but no quotes. He did ask Russia to give Hillary's alleged 30k missing emails to the FBI if it was "able to find them", which at the time was funny. I didn't take him seriously. Nevertheless that bit of standup comedy (pretty poor IMO) has been construed to be a hack request. The words "able to find them" do come close to inviting a hack. But on the other hand, it could be construed to mean he was making light of the FBI's inability "to find them". I doubt he really wanted them found because most likely they were innocuous family and friend matters, and such a revelation would have deflated one of his favorite talking points. I don't see how he extricates himself from this accusation other than to say that he was kidding and Putin would be a fool to think he was serious.

[drhuy]

more defected democrat electors than repub electors, just priceless. even leftists cant stand their own kind any longer.

[YellowFever]

I wonder how the voters of the state of Washington feel about having voted for Colin Powell and Faith Spotted Eagle.

I'm sure they thought they were voting for Hillary.

Looks like voters got disenfranchised....

[JAD_333]

The Electoral College is really a bulwark against the possibility that a candidate is truly unfit to serve as president. If it were to come to light after the election that the winning candidate was, for example, a massive tax cheat, a murderer, insane, in cahoots with a voting fraud scheme, etc, the states could pass emergency legislation unbinding their electors so they could vote for the runner up, which would be the unfit candidate's running mate. This one feature of the Electoral College is why many political scientists oppose the popular vote.

[citanon]

I wonder how the voters of the state of Washington feel about having voted for Colin Powell and Faith Spotted Eagle.

I'm sure they thought they were voting for Hillary.

Looks like voters got disenfranchised....

The idea there was to put forth a moderate Republican that Congressional Republicans could defect to.

Of course it backfired.

[Doktor]

Dok:

Thanks for the sources. However I don't see any reference in the US ambassador's statement or in the article that show he condoned the wiretaps. Quoting from your original post, you said:


It seems you created the quote to make a point, which is fine, as long as it captures the sense of what the guy actually said. I don't think it does in this case, but obviously he didn't condemn the wiretapping, and maybe he should have. In any case, they came from a whistle blower within the government which is altogether different than from hacking by a foreign government.

What the Embassy said and did is they pressed (sorry, suggested) to make a law to protect the whistleblower(s) in this case and to form a special prosecutor office for the content of the tapes (not the source).

It was not a quote, but a paraphrase.

[Wooglin]

Thanks. Now all I have to do is figure out what GW means. :)

Global Warming. You've spent enough time in that thread that I thought you'd get it.

[Doktor]

Global Warming. You've spent enough time in that thread that I thought you'd get it.

He is uber-trolling you :)

Not that he is like that, but he likes it.

[astralis]

But no mind. Let daddy fix you a hot toddy and bring you your teddy bear to hug.

watching JAD bring a gun to YF's knife-fight is at once fascinating and horrifying...lol. the man is on a roll!