Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2019 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Rouge means the colour red in French

    The word you want is rogue
    Apologies. Was a typo.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by astralis View Post

      it never ceases to amaze-- the lowness, the pettiness, and the general scumbaggery. it takes -talent- to be such a dick.
      This man is an affront to humanity...

      But at least he's against abortion, so that makes it all better.
      Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

      Comment


      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
        in regards to this, joe,



        https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...threat/582748/

        it never ceases to amaze-- the lowness, the pettiness, and the general scumbaggery. it takes -talent- to be such a dick.
        It is the result of a lifetime of being able to treat people with utter contempt with zero consequences. I suspect this was learned from childhood and has grown uncontrolled since.

        You reminded me of something I saw online. I have edited out a few bits, but a lot of it goes directly to how unpleasant his persona is. America has had unpleasant people as Presidents, but I can think of none who so publicly revelled in their own vileness. There won't be much nostalgia for this Presidency


        Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?"

        Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:

        "A few things spring to mind.

        Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

        For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

        So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trumpís limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

        Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

        I donít say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

        But with Trump, itís a fact. He doesnít even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

        Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

        And scarily, he doesnít just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

        There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. Itís all surface.

        Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

        Well, we donít. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

        And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

        Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

        Heís not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

        Heís more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

        And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

        That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

        There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.

        So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guyí is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
        * Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
        * You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

        This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

        After all, itís impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

        God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
        sigpic

        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

        Comment


        • On a different track, it is sadly predictable to see the sudden change in attitude to executive power from those who repeatedly referred to Obama as a 'dictator'.

          I recall when an Army exercise in Texas resulted in the Governor calling out the state national guard to make sure it wasn't an attempt at military occupation. Trump deploys troops to the border - cheers. Now there is the prospect of an emergency being declared to built a wall. Executive overreach? 'Dictatorship'? 'Tyranny'? Don't bet on it. More cheers.

          Fucking hypocrites.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
            This man is an affront to humanity...

            But at least he's against abortion, so that makes it all better.
            Narcissistic, egotistical and a liar. He is the Ted Bundy of politics.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
              It is the result of a lifetime of being able to treat people with utter contempt with zero consequences. I suspect this was learned from childhood and has grown uncontrolled since.
              That's exactly what it is. He's never had to answer for his actions. I suspect that will likely change some time this year. Who knows though.

              Great post by the way, perfectly describes what a loathsome piece of shit Donald Trump truly is.


              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
              On a different track, it is sadly predictable to see the sudden change in attitude to executive power from those who repeatedly referred to Obama as a 'dictator'.

              I recall when an Army exercise in Texas resulted in the Governor calling out the state national guard to make sure it wasn't an attempt at military occupation. Trump deploys troops to the border - cheers. Now there is the prospect of an emergency being declared to built a wall. Executive overreach? 'Dictatorship'? 'Tyranny'? Don't bet on it. More cheers.

              Fucking hypocrites.
              That's exactly right. But when Trump does it, he's "fighting" or something. Funny how the anti-government types are suddenly docile kittens now that an authoritarian is in office.


              Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
              Narcissistic, egotistical and a liar. He is the Ted Bundy of politics.
              His brain is seriously miswired...but his supporters are unable to fathom the hate he generates. Says something about his supporters, one thinks.
              Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

              Comment


              • You have got to be shitting me..

                Paper ballots are the future of election security, report says | PG | Feb 11 2019

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  Why not since anything electronic and connected can be hacked sooner or later. In California I vote by absentee ballot in my home. Paper and I fill in the little circles with black ink then mail in. Many do that in California and you can't hack my ballot.

                  Electronic systems seemed so great when they came out and then the darker side of them started to show up. I have never trusted them precisely because I knew there would be issues one day. We just had Wells Fargo off line for two days and people couldn't access their accounts on line. Mostly younger who don't know a check register from a hole in the wall and wouldn't know enough to go into a branch and check like I did in the 70s and 80s.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                    Why not since anything electronic and connected can be hacked sooner or later. In California I vote by absentee ballot in my home. Paper and I fill in the little circles with black ink then mail in. Many do that in California and you can't hack my ballot.

                    Electronic systems seemed so great when they came out and then the darker side of them started to show up. I have never trusted them precisely because I knew there would be issues one day. We just had Wells Fargo off line for two days and people couldn't access their accounts on line. Mostly younger who don't know a check register from a hole in the wall and wouldn't know enough to go into a branch and check like I did in the 70s and 80s.
                    Australia uses paper ballots for all elections. Electoral fraud here is virtually unknown. There have been occasions when ballots have been misplaced or lost, but the systems are sufficiently robust that this has been detected when it happens. During a recent election analysts following the election actually spotted a discrepancy even before the Electoral Commission did and the misplaced ballots were found. I don't know enough about voting machines to pass judgement, but paper ballots work just fine.

                    We also have independent Electoral Commissions at state & Federal level to administer elections and draw boundaries. We did this to rid us of the scourge of gerrymandering, malapportionment and other impediments to fair elections. It worked. We have had elections decided by a literal handful of votes and everyone accepts the outcome as legitimate.
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      Paper ballots leave a paper trail. They can be recounted, honestly, over and over.
                      Electronic ballots can be hacked, altered, deleted.

                      I know which one I want.
                      Trust me?
                      I'm an economist!

                      Comment


                      • Click image for larger version

Name:	TLies.png
Views:	2
Size:	409.7 KB
ID:	1477855
                        Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                        Comment


                        • clever, but a blind ferret could see his way past them. i just read the Bob Woodward book "Fear", based off Trump's statement that "Real power is, I don't even want to use the word: 'Fear.'"

                          he doesn't really try to persuade the un-persuaded. he uses fear to deter them.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                            Why not since anything electronic and connected can be hacked sooner or later. In California I vote by absentee ballot in my home. Paper and I fill in the little circles with black ink then mail in. Many do that in California and you can't hack my ballot.

                            Electronic systems seemed so great when they came out and then the darker side of them started to show up. I have never trusted them precisely because I knew there would be issues one day. We just had Wells Fargo off line for two days and people couldn't access their accounts on line. Mostly younger who don't know a check register from a hole in the wall and wouldn't know enough to go into a branch and check like I did in the 70s and 80s.
                            Our machines aren't attached to any network. They just record which button was pressed. After the data is downloaded and collated. The boxes have many security features that make tampering very difficult.

                            So the hack is not in the tampering but the counting. Famous guy said that. So when counting is done at the booth level it is done in the presence of representatives of all parties who participated. They can see how their party did and then those results are passed higher up where it is again verified in the same manner until a grand total is made.

                            I think the american version used windows and quite frankly was too complicated and more risk prone. Ones we use are just a box with buttons.

                            The reason i'm pushing back here is detractors of electronic voting in India like to quote how other countries have moved back to paper and therefore they must be right and we are wrong.

                            Ain't so : )

                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            Paper ballots leave a paper trail. They can be recounted, honestly, over and over.
                            Electronic ballots can be hacked, altered, deleted.

                            I know which one I want.
                            The systems we use in india generate a paper trail. This is a new addition as people were sceptical when they pressed a button whether the vote cast was really going to be used or something else pre-programmed. So a receipt can be generated on request showing the result. Kinda messes with the secret ballot thing but this is an important check.

                            In the past booths could be captured and ballot boxes stuffed. It is easier to fake paper ballots than machines that record the votes as each machine needs to be captured and its electronics manipulated. This has to be done on a large scale to actually matter and therein lies the problem. How to keep it secret. Impossible.

                            All political parties in India hate electronic voting, this tells me we are on the right path.

                            When elections are done the losing party runs to the street and says hack. But when they win they are quiet.

                            To date not a single party has been able to substantiate these hack claims despite open challenges being thrown by the election commission.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Feb 19,, 00:19.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                              Australia uses paper ballots for all elections. Electoral fraud here is virtually unknown. There have been occasions when ballots have been misplaced or lost, but the systems are sufficiently robust that this has been detected when it happens. During a recent election analysts following the election actually spotted a discrepancy even before the Electoral Commission did and the misplaced ballots were found. I don't know enough about voting machines to pass judgement, but paper ballots work just fine.

                              We also have independent Electoral Commissions at state & Federal level to administer elections and draw boundaries. We did this to rid us of the scourge of gerrymandering, malapportionment and other impediments to fair elections. It worked. We have had elections decided by a literal handful of votes and everyone accepts the outcome as legitimate.
                              Its these small margin wins where i think electronic voting may be vulnerable. Few hundreds to low thousands. This means elections at the local level could be more susceptible say city municipal level but harder for state or nation wide.

                              Having said that we recently had a state election get decided over as little as 5000 votes that is for a total count of over 40 million. I was amazed it came down to the line that close !! First past the post system can do that some times. Have you ever had a national election get decided on such a thin margin ?
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Feb 19,, 00:23.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Its these small margin wins where i think electronic voting may be vulnerable. Few hundreds to low thousands. This means elections at the local level could be more susceptible say city municipal level but harder for state or nation wide.

                                Having said that we recently had a state election get decided over as little as 5000 votes that is for a total count of over 40 million. I was amazed it came down to the line that close !! First past the post system can do that some times. Have you ever had a national election get decided on such a thin margin ?
                                Yes, several. In 1961 the conservative Menzies government secured its majority by 130 votes in a single seat - ironically the result of a handful of preference votes from the Communist Party. In 2010 the parliament was hung, with the ALP & LNP having the same number of seats. I don't have seat by seat breakdowns, but I will guarantee you there were seats decided by a few hundred votes.

                                In my home state the 1999 election was effectively decided by 16 votes in one seat. I am certain other states have had similarly close votes at various times. Fortunately our systems are sufficiently robust that people respect the result.
                                sigpic

                                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X