TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
143. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.18%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    50 34.97%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.97%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.80%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.09%
Page 38 of 554 FirstFirst ... 38131823283334353637383940414243485358636873788388138288538 ... LastLast
Results 926 to 950 of 13829

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #926
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Jesus Christ...

    Okay, let's assume that Vae is 100% totally correct, that Newsweek is now a far left liberal mouthpiece. This is still a suspect claim in and of itself, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume it as a given. Now, with that stated, does this fact do anything to prove the article false in and of itself?

    No. It certainly could throw its veracity into question, depending on your political leanings, but it does nothing by itself to negate any claims made within it.

    They cited their sources. They showed some of the documents in question. They explained the steps and procedures used to come to their conclusion. Though the conclusion could be questioned depending on how it's all presented (this is what the cool kids call spin), there is a trail of verifiable evidence that can be followed. You can't dismiss what's been presented, call it a lie, simply because you don't like the source.

    Doing so is falling victim to the lazy logic of idiots.

  2. #927
    Member
    Registered: Mar 1999
    Location: I can't find myself
    Forget it, Renz. It's Trump Troll Town.

  3. #928
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    What gets me is, if Trump is really getting all this support because he was the one saying Obama wasn't really born in the US and the like, hell, my racist uncle has been saying that all along and his jokes are better than Trump's. Why not nominate him? Or any of another 50 million red neck old farts? I really don't get what's special about him that distinguishes him.

  4. #929
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Clinton is far from being clean. It's all but obvious that she tends to bend the rules in her favor whenever she can, stays as mum as possible about everything, then plays the plausible deniability card as rote when even the smallest thing gets thrown back in her face. The email thing is the perfect example of it. If she owned up to it, the whole scandal would've been done and over with a year ago. Instead, she made up a billion and one excuses, pointed a bunch of fingers, all but stoking the fires of her own witch hunt.

    She comes across as a very furtive person. Makes it hard for the voting public to trust her. Hence why Trump is running such a close race.
    Or perhaps...just as with the Benghazi deal, she's playing rhetorical JuJitsu. It focuses attention on the most trivial and mundane aspects of the scandal possible. With Benghazi the real scandal wasn't lying about the riots, but the revelation that the United States was funneling heavy military weapons to ISIS in Syria. With the "emails", the real issue isn't that she's lying about using a private mail server but the appearance that a top US official was selling foreign policy to the highest bidder.

    And note the contrast in standards. The Bush administration was pilloried for lying about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and rightly so...but that doesn't look as bad compared to deliberately causing the creation of a militant islamist state the way Hillary did. Nixon was removed from office for removing fifteen minutes of tape and spying on a single party office.....comparing that to what Hillary did with erasing 30,000 emails and what Obama did with setting up the most invasive surveillance state in the history of the world is like trying to make an equivalency between slapping somebody in a bar fight and the Holocaust.




    Sometimes I wish I could vote for the amazingly competent villain Hillary's detractors seem to think she is.
    Let me lean in on the "she can't possibly be both competent enough to kill people and get away with everything!" Argument. First off keep in mind that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC are large organizations with budgets north of hundreds of millions of dollars and massive numbers of employees.....to say nothing of the State Department.


    Here is another example that directly pertains to the counter argument. Picture one of the largest consumer packaged goods companies in the world. This company is known as being completely ruthless in developing nations where it runs plants. In Colombia the workers attempted to organize as a Union, and almost immediately after doing so they went missing with a few of their severed heads turning up later. Given the timing of the event and some of the evidence journalists found it is almost certain that they were assassinated by said major corporation in order to defeat unionization efforts.

    This company was "competent enough to have people killed and get away with it". However this corporation is also the same corporation that, not that long before the union events occurred, made a major change to its most profitable and famous product line that was poorly received to the point that it almost destroyed the entire company. It was a boneheaded move, made as a reaction to advances by a major competitor, and very poorly thought out and implemented.

    According to your logic this situation should be impossible because no organization competent enough to kill people and get away with it should be so stupid that they also almost destroyed their main source of revenue. Except it's not impossible. The organization in question was the Coca Cola corporation and both events(killing union workers and re-lauching Coke with a poorly received new recipe) are well documented and indusputable fact.


    In reality it simply isn't the case that every department, let alone not every person, isn't as competent as others. This is even more true when many aspects of an organization operate independently or when key activities are outsourced. In this case nobody thinks Hillary herself is competent enough to kill people and get away with it, but if they hired someone else to do it they definitely were. That also doesn't mean every person is equally competent in every area. For example Hillary is quite clearly brilliant at rhetoric but grossly incompetent at anything IT related.


    For the last point about "She was investigated and cleared!". That's not exactly what happened. They investigated her, found that she did everything she was acccused of, and decided not to prosecute while warning other people not to do the same thing or they would face prison time.


    Wonder why Comey would do that:

    http://freedomoutpost.com/fbi-direct...se-contractor/


    Again to be clear Trump very clearly lacks the ethics to be any kind of a solution to the current problems in the government....but given the current situation it explains why his blunt style and lack of political experience are viewed as a positive by many people.

  5. #930
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Good god. If that's true, it'll eclipse every other hot topic issue currently flying about this election, up to and Hillary's currently pending conflict of interest suit with the Clinton Foundation.

    If he's found guilty of this, he could be tried for treason by the very letter of the law, if the knife were twisted hard enough.

    Amazing. You think THAT is treason but you don't have a problem with any of Hillary's even more questionable foundation arrangements?


    And found another one. Remember when you were outraged at the suggestion that voter fraud might be a thing?

    A completely ridiculous accu...oh wait.

    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/2...s-in-colorado/

    http://www.richmond.com/news/virgini...aa70012f9.html

    What the local papers aren't saying is that in both instances it was local DNC groups caught registering dead voters.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 1st Oct 2016 at 11:56.

  6. #931
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2002
    Location: Pacific Northwest
    B-but the other side does it too!

    Tony, copy the above. Then paste it in every post you do. It will save time and allow you to spread your shittiness to other forums.

  7. #932
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Trump crashes and burns in the first debate. Trump has childish, 3 A.M. Twitter meltdown over last decade's Miss World. Trump found doing business with Fidel Castro.

    Trump rises in the polls.

    WTF USA?

  8. #933
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Watching the US now is kind of surreal. There are people who actually think Trump should be in charge of the US. Like, actual adults. I get that Hilary is awful, but Trump is like one of the signs of the end times or something. Whole different league.

  9. #934
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    faetal, would you say Hilary is awful because of her centre-right position that's not all that different from where the Republicans themselves were about a dozen years ago, or do you consider her awful in ways that go beyond that?

  10. #935
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    There are people who actually think Trump should be in charge of the US.
    Some of my relatives think that and I now have it on their very reliable authority that Trump has business acumen. And this I believe, I think. If you can exploit your country's laws to reduce your business debt - 4 times, I understand - then that is definitely acumen, I think.

  11. #936
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    faetal, would you say Hilary is awful because of her centre-right position that's not all that different from where the Republicans themselves were about a dozen years ago, or do you consider her awful in ways that go beyond that?
    By European political standards, she's very far right of centre. About the only reason I'd ever cast a vote in her direction would be if someone like Trump was running opposite.

  12. #937
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    I think the left/right thing breaks down a bit at that point, though. Socially, from everything I've read she is by and large a far cry from our odious far-right parties here, even if in economical terms she's pretty much a neo-Con. Or have I got things wrong there?

  13. #938
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I'm generally not a big fan of the whole left / right nomenclature, since it generalises too much. Seems her rhetoric is largely about keeping the 1% happy, and she is very hawkish too with the sabre rattling. Basically, she's very Conservative - I don't think there is too much difference between her and most moderate Republicans. That said, given that I'm not American, there are probably many nuances I am missing. I really hoped Bernie Sanders would run - at least then you'd have had a bit more spectrum in the voting options. Now it seems the choice is between a candidate which straddles both parties and (still the best thing I ever read on the internet) the villain from a film where the hero is a dog.

  14. #939
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    They investigated her, found that she did everything she was acccused of, and decided not to prosecute while warning other people not to do the same thing or they would face prison time.
    I've been pretty charitable to your posts when you back them up with reasoning, but this bit I quoted is nonsense. The FBI investigated her, found that while she did everything she was accused of (to some degree) it wouldn't rise to the level of warranting criminal prosecution. What Comey said was essentially 'if she still had the job she'd have been fired and/or lost her clearance, so this doesn't mean what she did was A-OK, but just wasn't bad enough to go to prison over'. Criminal prosecution would require her to have knowingly and maliciously circumvented classified materials handling and the investigation didn't demonstrate that. It thoroughly demonstrated her incompetence and cavalier attitude towards security, but not deliberate exfiltration of classified material to an unclassified environment with intent to harm the United States. Since she doesn't work for State anymore, obviously they can't fire her, so there's nothing the federal justice system can do.

    The real issue there isn't that she was let off the hook, but rather that someone can knowingly violate infosec to the point where they would be considered ineligible to receive a security clearance or hold a job involving classified information, yet can still run for an office that guarantees both.

  15. #940
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    What Catbarf said.

    Real stupid. Not criminal.

  16. #941
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Calling Hillary right-leaning is a myth.

    If you rate her by her Senate voting record she's the most leftist Dem pres. candidate in over 30 years and the 11th most leftist candidate in the Senate during her tenure there.

    By this metric, she is more liberal than the previous 2 Democratic presidential nominees - and neither Obama or Kerry had to endure accusations of being a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican. In fact, when you compare voting records it appears as though she would be the most liberal Democratic nominee in 32 years. [2]
    Links:

    Hillary Clinton Was the 11th Most Liberal Member of the Senate

    Hillary and Bernie are both Liberal

  17. #942
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Watching the US now is kind of surreal. There are people who actually think Trump should be in charge of the US. Like, actual adults. I get that Hilary is awful, but Trump is like one of the signs of the end times or something. Whole different league.
    It's like some sort of ultimate postmodern joke is finally being realised.

    Hey! That has a neat ring to it...

  18. #943
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Trump crashes and burns in the first debate. Trump has childish, 3 A.M. Twitter meltdown over last decade's Miss World. Trump found doing business with Fidel Castro.

    Trump rises in the polls.

    WTF USA?
    Because Trump is using a lot of NLP tricks that you won't consciously notice unless you know what you're looking for.





    Watching the US now is kind of surreal. There are people who actually think Trump should be in charge of the US. Like, actual adults. I get that Hilary is awful, but Trump is like one of the signs of the end times or something. Whole different league.
    Again, call me back when Trump has armed and funded a major terrorist organization that engages in the wholesale rape of innocent girls, slaughter of innocents, and torture....or when he's started wars that have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

    Besides which that's hyperbole. He's going to sit on his fat ass and do absolutely nothing aside from prosecuting some Democrats.



    Also some of the other forums are talking about the whole tax deal and one person has this to say. While I'm not accountant myself I am highly knowledgeable about corporate finance and this assessment is largely accurate as regards the new tax story.

    I'm a licensed CPA. To be fully transparent, I don't prepare tax returns for a living BUT understand key provisions of the tax code better than most people. Believe me when I say that there is nothing to see here that is even remotely out of the ordinary.

    To be simplistic, the reason he did not pay taxes that year is due to the fact that he didn't make any money (profit) from his businesses. That to me is plainly an obvious reason to not pay taxes. I mean the whole article can be summed up into this. Nothing more.

    The NYT is fluffing up the article by explaining Net Operating Losses (NOL) in language that is geared towards persuading the reader that it's some kind of hidden loophole. Truth is that it is one of the more well known provisions of the code out there, while also being the most prevalent. This is true in the example of loss leader businesses like startups that lose money in the first few years but get a break from those previous losses when they finally turn a profit. Also, real estate businesses take huge risks of loss dependent very much on market conditions that affect individual markets. So it makes sense that the code may allow some incentive to keep those businesses more attractive to owners and investors.

    What did annoy the shit out of me, however, that these dick wads referred to the balance sheet (containing assets and liabilities, like buildings and debt) like the Profit and Loss statement (containing such things as sales, expenses and LOSSES). These two things are not the same thing. While I may seem like I'm nitpicking, the reason I do is because it makes the article seem like a hack job.. A 16 year old could have written this.

    Misleading the public may be easier if they actually consulted a CPA worth his salt and had him read the article before releasing it. Factual fuck ups like this are unacceptable when they say they hired "experts." Using Google may have saved them some cash on that.

    It's also a fairly common financial management technique where a company will "take a bath" by recognizing as many liabilities as possible in one year in order to recognize a large net loss. Once you recognize the loss the IRS then allows you to amortize that loss and count it against your future taxes.

    Shady but it's more or less routine in tax accounting. It's much less of a scandal than Trump's bribes to the Clinton Foundation.

    Other notable examples include every Urban yuppie's darling, Mr. Elon Musk:

    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...k_20141231.htm

  19. #944
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2002
    Location: Pacific Northwest
    I may or may not have lost a quarter the other day standing in front of the vending machine. I've decided I'm not paying taxes for the next twenty yeAARGHHHH OH GOD THE IRS IS HERE THE IRS IS HERE THEY'RE TAKING ME TO CAMP X-RAY SEND HELP BLAKSDHFKSAVN CXM,VXJKCB;SNDFJKLR5T

  20. #945
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea

  21. #946
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Calling Hillary right-leaning is a myth.

    If you rate her by her Senate voting record she's the most leftist Dem pres. candidate in over 30 years and the 11th most leftist candidate in the Senate during her tenure there.
    Depends where you place the centre. From my perspective, the entirety of US politics is way Conservative leaning. Similarly there have been governments in Sweden considered Conservative who were far more liberal than the most liberal UK government of the last 30 years. It's difficult to put it into neat terms, because as I said earlier, terms like Left (or indeed Liberal) are too general and obscure the nuances of what I mean.

  22. #947
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    You're not wrong but I'll rephrase how I see it. Unless one is being philosophical or doing a comparative study, then "center" really has to be relative to the society IMO. If Hillary is the most Leftist Dem candidate in 30 years by her voting record, then one's problem can't really fairly be with her. It's with the entire US system at that point.

    Thinking in realpolitik, one can't expect to get a much more progressive candidate in the US than her. Sanders was undoubtably one of the few politicians more progessive than her (or anyone else. He was never part of the Dems except for the nomination), but it was always a pipedream that he could have gotten the nomination. We just have different perspectives on it.

    I'm congentially wired to understand politics in terms of how social forces actually play out on the ground, and don't see the point of, eg, pretending the US had the same demographic and socioeconomic conditions that led to Sweden's unique agri/labour alliance in the 50s, the prime condition for its social welfare programme at the time. It didn't, so it'd be a category mistake to expect the same outcome and political evolution or give commentary on that kind of basis.

  23. #948
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    I don't buy that she is the Leftist Dem candidate in 30 years. I don't see how you can put her to the left of Obama for that matter.

    The source you cited is a statistical model that doesn't know liberal from conservative. The guys behind DW-NOMINATE apply principle components analysis to roll call vote data, look among the larger eigenvalues, and select an eigenvector (a principle component) that shows the strongest Republican/Democratic split. Hillary ended up being the 11th most negative value along the eigenvector corresponding to the 2nd largest eigenvalue of the roll call distribution. GovTrack does the same thing but only considers sponsorship rather than every vote. A problem occurs when somebody labels this eigenvector the "liberal-conservative" axis. The problem is that the analysis doesn't consider the topic, substance, or issue being voted on. It doesn't know the difference between a vote to fund Amtrak and a vote for DOMA. Another problem is that it doesn't know the significance of a vote, so a vote to add some pork to an appropriations bill to fund a memorial counts the same as a vote for the ACA. It doesn't know anything about any vote except who voted for and against. What you get out of principle components analysis is a measure of who voted with who. Members who shared more votes in common will be closer on the principle axes, and members who shared fewer votes in common will be farther away. That is all. It can be used to identify voting blocks, or assess polarization. But it can't tell you who is liberal and conservative because it doesn't know a liberal vote from a conservative one.

  24. #949
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    You're not wrong but I'll rephrase how I see it. Unless one is being philosophical or doing a comparative study, then "center" really has to be relative to the society IMO. If Hillary is the most Leftist Dem candidate in 30 years by her voting record, then one's problem can't really fairly be with her. It's with the entire US system at that point.
    People asked why I find her awful, so the answer to that question is relative to me. She's the preferable candidate out of her and Trump, but that's only because Trump is literally about as bad as a presidential candidate can realistically get.

  25. #950
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    but it was always a pipedream that he could have gotten the nomination.
    He got pretty close, and there's no telling what might have happened if the DNC didn't do their damnedest to keep him from winning. So I suppose you could accurately say that the people who refuse to switch from him to her are frustrated with the US system rather than the candidate herself (although it gets more complicated when she is seen as the embodiment of that system), but her voting record in contrast with Sanders' does put her less-progressive tendencies in stark contrast.

    I don't think Clinton's policy statements necessarily show a bad candidate or even a bad Democrat for that matter. She's being dragged down entirely by the baggage of her past, the DNC's actions this year, and running against a populist candidate that put her corporate ties under the microscope. Frankly, I don't think where exactly she falls on the political spectrum matters too much at this point- this election is a popularity contest, not a policy analysis.

Page 38 of 554 FirstFirst ... 38131823283334353637383940414243485358636873788388138288538 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •