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

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

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

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%
Page 43 of 558 FirstFirst ... 3813182328333839404142434445464748535863687378838893143293543 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,075 of 13937

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #1051
    And Glenn Greenwald strikes again, this time directly addressing those of you who fall for the "Russian forgery" bullshit.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/...s-putin-plots/

    Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

    To see how extreme and damaging this behavior has become, let’s just quickly examine two utterly false claims that Democrats over the past four days – led by party-loyal journalists – have disseminated and induced thousands of people, if not more, to believe. On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official Malcolm Nance, within hours of its release, posted a tweet claiming – with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive – that the archive was compromised with fakes:

    Except the only fraud here was Nance’s claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night’s debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported – and continue to report – on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done

    Short version: Basically, there's zero evidence to support the claim that the Russians have doctored any of the documents. At this stage it is nothing more than a conspiracy theory used to perpetuate Mcarthy-esque tactics of portraying any dissent as "treason".

    And you suckers all are so pretentious as to assume that you're far too smart to ever get sucked into something like what McCarthy did.

  2. #1052
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Hey, at least it seems your argument has evolved beyond "there's no evidence the Russians are behind this hack, it's just McCarthyist conspiracy theorist bullshit" to "there's no evidence the Russians are doctoring the documents they grabbed during all those hacks, it's just McCarthyist conspiracy theory bullshit". Baby steps.

    Though you are correct, there's no evidence any state actor has doctored anything. Rather, shrill dipshits on the internet (not that I have anything against being shrill) are waving about doucments they are claim as damning evidence against Hillary, laid out in black and white, expecting people to take the bait, rather than do the research to find out said evidence is nowhere to be found in the WikiLeaks archives.

  3. #1053
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Though to be fair, we've spent a lot of time explaining why we hate Trump. Now here's why we hate Clinton.

    While this isn't the worst thing in the world, it's not a good thing to pop up in a day and age when just about everyone is sick of our politicians using government functions to scratch each other's backs for mutual benefits. Even if you could argue that it was all done for charity and relief, using her position as Secretary of State to benefit her own foundation is a direct and pretty nasty conflict of interest.

  4. #1054
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Remember when you were outraged at the suggestion that voter fraud might be a thing?
    Here's an update on this issue...


  5. #1055
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I find that video incredibly suspicious. Here we have a guy openly admitting to fraud within his department to some random stranger? Until I hear otherwise, I'm gonna assume this is yet another ACORN and Planned Parenthood type manufactured outrage video.


  6. #1056
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    On that same note, do you have any idea how many people it'd take to swing an election, even on a precinct by precinct basis? It'd take convoys of buses, filled to capacity, making stops at multiple districts to overwhelm the local vote.

    If this were going on, it wouldn't be a rumor of something those wily democrats do, a tactic whispered about in the dark recesses of the internet. It'd be incredibly noticeable, and immediately suspicious. To swing a statewide vote through voter fraud, you'd have to move hundreds of thousands of people about across the state. The logistics of setting something like that up makes it unfeasible, all for an effort that no one would have enough time to achieve with guaranteed results. At most, all they could do is swing a couple of districts, which would probably be pretty easy to spot, since a county would suddenly notice that they have more votes in than they do registered voters for the area.

    If someone wants to swing a vote, they'll probably go for the lowest hanging fruit, and tamper with the ballots directly. It's a helluva lot easier, only requiring you to corrupt a few people here and there, and takes more effort to detect after the fact.

  7. #1057
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Or just gaslight it.
    Trump takes to a podium after he's lost and announces his victory.
    When someone informs him he lost, he just comes back with "No, I didn't."
    It's worked for him so far.

  8. #1058
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    I find that video incredibly suspicious.


    Here we have a guy openly admitting to fraud within his department to some random stranger?
    Party + Hot Chick = Loose Lips
    Last edited by Vae; 12th Oct 2016 at 04:40.

  9. #1059
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: cesspool

  10. #1060
    Level 10,000 achieved
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Finland
    RE: Vae's video. Is that true, that you don't need to provide ID when you vote in some states in the US? Because holy shit, how is that supposed to work?

  11. #1061
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Yeah, sounds crazy, yet it's true...Here's a map showing the Voter ID requirements...



    Unbelievably, only 8 out of 50 states actually have strict Photo ID requirements...That's why election results can be so easily manipulated...and why the Democrat elite want illegal immigrants to pour into the country.

    The deal is, keep us in power and we'll give you free goodies, regardless of the consequences to the country.

  12. #1062
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    A. There aren't enough illegal immigrants in the country to serve as a massive influence on the elections. ~11 million is a bit, could swing a state if they were all grouped together in one place, but it's not enough to go through all the trouble of bringing them in. Which...

    B. Before we started running with the convenient narrative that Obama and the Democrats want to open our borders, and bring in illegal immigrants for easy votes, he was rather derisively known as the Deporter-In-Chief. It's under Obama's watch that illegal immigration has become a negative, and he's increased funding for border security by over 300% during his tenure.

    C. Illegal immigrants aren't baited "free stuff", nor do most of them use it. You may find a couple here and there, but most try to stay away, since it'll only serve to draw attention to themselves, ultimately getting them caught and deported.

    D. Our elections have yet to be manipulated through voter fraud on a scale wide enough to swing a district, let alone a state.

    Everything you've said is nothing more than the same tired old bullshit talking points with absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever.

  13. #1063
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    On that same note, do you have any idea how many people it'd take to swing an election, even on a precinct by precinct basis? It'd take convoys of buses, filled to capacity, making stops at multiple districts to overwhelm the local vote.

    If this were going on, it wouldn't be a rumor of something those wily democrats do, a tactic whispered about in the dark recesses of the internet. It'd be incredibly noticeable, and immediately suspicious. To swing a statewide vote through voter fraud, you'd have to move hundreds of thousands of people about across the state. The logistics of setting something like that up makes it unfeasible, all for an effort that no one would have enough time to achieve with guaranteed results. At most, all they could do is swing a couple of districts, which would probably be pretty easy to spot, since a county would suddenly notice that they have more votes in than they do registered voters for the area.

    If someone wants to swing a vote, they'll probably go for the lowest hanging fruit, and tamper with the ballots directly. It's a helluva lot easier, only requiring you to corrupt a few people here and there, and takes more effort to detect after the fact.
    Most states use electronic voting machines, and some of them are purely electronic and don't have any paper trail you can go back and check, including some swing states. Considering the weak state of cyber security almost everywhere, it can't be all that hard to rig an election. If the US and/or Israel can trash centrifuges in Natanz that were off the grid, then a similarly sophisticated adversary could probably influence an election if they really wanted to. And a less sophisticated actor could probably do it as well, as long as they have enough insiders with access to the machines.

  14. #1064
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Our legal and illegal immigrants are blamed for everything over here, Renz. It doesn't matter what the truth of anything is.

    As Trump seems to have told his supporters to go out and vote on 28 November, I'm predicting a Clinton landslide.

  15. #1065
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Most states use electronic voting machines, and some of them are purely electronic and don't have any paper trail you can go back and check, including some swing states. Considering the weak state of cyber security almost everywhere, it can't be all that hard to rig an election. If the US and/or Israel can trash centrifuges in Natanz that were off the grid, then a similarly sophisticated adversary could probably influence an election if they really wanted to. And a less sophisticated actor could probably do it as well, as long as they have enough insiders with access to the machines.
    I agree with that. Electronic systems are too prone for error, and too easy to break. For all the advances we've made over the years, I think good ole pencil and paper are still the way to go. Mainly because, as we have all seen these days, someone will always bitch about the process, and complain that something or other has been rigged. You don't want to give them ammunition. Keep it simple, and hard to game from the booths.

    Though I still say that if anyone is going to commit election fraud, it'll be done by those handling the ballots, not by extra votes at the booths. It's too hard to fuck with an election that latter way.

    And yeah, NOVEMBER 28th EVERYONE! DO YOUR DUTY!

  16. #1066
    Administrator
    Registered: Oct 2000
    Location: Athens of the North
    There isn't a need for ID or any other document to vote in the UK either. Postal voting has been alleged to have the biggest fraud but probably only a real concern for smaller local elections.

  17. #1067
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    If you want to require an ID to vote - seems reasonable - the flip side is that you absolutely have to make it so that every citizen gets an ID at no cost or inconvenience to them. Otherwise, voting isn't a right at all. These voter ID laws are crafted specifically to suppress poor and minority voting, and are pretty good at it - certainly way better than this alleged "voter impersonation fraud" has ever been at inflating such votes.

  18. #1068
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    There aren't enough illegal immigrants in the country to serve as a massive influence on the elections. ~11 million is a bit, could swing a state if they were all grouped together in one place, but it's not enough to go through all the trouble of bringing them in.
    11 million is a low estimate, it's probably a lot more...Even so, in the 2012 presidential election, 61 million voted for Romney, and 66 million voted for Obama.

    Illegal immigrants aren't baited "free stuff", nor do most of them use it. You may find a couple here and there, but most try to stay away, since it'll only serve to draw attention to themselves, ultimately getting them caught and deported.
    Nope...Here's the info you've been looking for...

    The Cost of Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Households - Center for Immigration Studies (cis.org)

    In September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies published a landmark study of immigration and welfare use, showing that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households. Following similar methodology, this new study examines the dollar cost of that welfare use.

    The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.

    The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.

    At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.

    Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.
    A highly informative video, regarding immigration and welfare...





  19. #1069
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: London / London / London
    So Vae, your amazing sensitivity to news-source bias, that doesn't tingle when you read the centre for immigration studies bio?

  20. #1070
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Yes, I understand that there are conservatives on the staff of the organization. Although not all "conservatives" or "liberals" are automatically trying to bias their research...and yes, I also understand how things can be manipulated to appear "believable". However, it's the most comprehensive study I've found that uses data from fairly reliable government sources...and the study was also sent to a third-party independent think tank, for validation.

    Sources:

    http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/c...fare-final.pdf
    http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
    https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/...arbook2000.pdf

  21. #1071
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Those states above don't match up with the usual breakdown of welfare recipients by race. If I remember correctly, the breakdown among those who receive some form of government assistance goes something like (estimated)...

    White 20%
    Hispanic 20%
    Black 40%
    Asian 15%
    Other 5%

    ...give or take a few percent each.

    Your graphs above makes it look like immigrants make up the largest recipient totals of welfare, which they don't. There are roughly as many Hispanics riding it as there are whites, with the black demographic taking the greatest percentage. Considering this is a list that lumps solely by race, not making a distinction between legal immigrants together and native born Latino-descents, it seems immigrants don't take any more welfare as a whole than any other demographic.

    edit: I should also add that this is the "people receiving some form of government assistance" welfare stats. The usual unemployment/food stamp welfare stats, the biggest bugbears of those who usually make these "immgrants/blacks are eating us alive" arguments, breaks down even less in your favor, since blacks and whites both take up about 40% each on that, with Hispanics and Asians only eeking in at around 15% and 5% respectively.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 12th Oct 2016 at 19:46.

  22. #1072
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    Hillary stood behind it, congressional democrats stood behind it, and with the help of the media they ravaged Ken Starr, Lewinsky, and all Bill's other victims. Trump deserves unbounded criticism, for this and everything else he's ever done. It's nauseating to hear Hillary suddenly develop a conscience in regards to sexist pigs, though. She should shut up.
    Funny you should say that, as back in the day Trump himself called Paula Jones a loser and said that Bill Clinton was the real victim.

  23. #1073
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2001
    Location: uk
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    Stuff with bar charts
    So you're saying that people who've come from relatively poorer countries tend to not have as much money as those who've come from richer ones and that this is some sort of surprise?

  24. #1074
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    Yes, I understand that there are conservatives on the staff of the organization. Although not all "conservatives" or "liberals" are automatically trying to bias their research...and yes, I also understand how things can be manipulated to appear "believable". However, it's the most comprehensive study I've found that uses data from fairly reliable government sources...and the study was also sent to a third-party independent think tank, for validation.
    Yet an article from a source you considered too left wing and accused Trump of breaking a trade embargo is automatically false due to being partisan?
    OK.

  25. #1075
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Though to be fair, we've spent a lot of time explaining why we hate Trump. Now here's why we hate Clinton.

    While this isn't the worst thing in the world, it's not a good thing to pop up in a day and age when just about everyone is sick of our politicians using government functions to scratch each other's backs for mutual benefits. Even if you could argue that it was all done for charity and relief, using her position as Secretary of State to benefit her own foundation is a direct and pretty nasty conflict of interest.
    I highly suggest actually going through the emails as well.

    They're very candid, and in many cases fully admit the truth of opinions that publicly get lambasted as "right wing extremism". There's one where Hillary is (no shit) talking about Bronies and how millenials are spoiled losers with no social capital.

    Another example

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/295


    Anti-white racism of the most virulent kind has become a fact of life across Europe, but perhaps nowhere more so than in Germany. Kirsten Heisig's book When Patience Comes to an End details the visceral hatred many Muslims feel toward native Germans, who are subjected to a daily torrent of abuse and ethnic slurs in their own country. Even young Turkish women think nothing of calling native girls "German whores" and chanting that "Germans should be gassed," she writes. Here young Muslim women shout "So sieht Deutscher Inzest aus" at police officers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqeXMFrfVg8 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqeXMFrfVg8&feature=related> &feature=related.
    I mean....fuck. This reads like something you'd find on Stormfront. It's even more extreme than what I've seen in Berlin(although it does have a noticeably worse immigrant situation than cities like Frankfurt). I could easily believe that in Brussels or Paris, both of which had large populations of what we used to call MaMs(Military Age Males) hanging out in groups of 3-4 just staring at any woman walking down the street. To call the environments there "rapey" would an understatement.



    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Funny you should say that, as back in the day Trump himself called Paula Jones a loser and said that Bill Clinton was the real victim.

    Why he's full of shit. And unfortunately it's how I am in my public life. I do shit like showing up at "coming out day" holding a rainbow sign. You more or less have to if you want to have access to any good economic opportunities in America.


    Quote Originally Posted by caffeinatedzombeh View Post
    So you're saying that people who've come from relatively poorer countries tend to not have as much money as those who've come from richer ones and that this is some sort of surprise?
    Stupid Argument. There are immigrants who come from even poorer countries than Mexico (e.g. Haiti, Thailand) who have lower rates of welfare usage than certain American demographics. If you want to be more convincing structure your point in such a way that it can' be disproven with a single example.


    Hey, at least it seems your argument has evolved beyond "there's no evidence the Russians are behind this hack, it's just McCarthyist conspiracy theorist bullshit" to "there's no evidence the Russians are doctoring the documents they grabbed during all those hacks, it's just McCarthyist conspiracy theory bullshit". Baby steps.

    Though you are correct, there's no evidence any state actor has doctored anything. Rather, shrill dipshits on the internet (not that I have anything against being shrill) are waving about doucments they are claim as damning evidence against Hillary, laid out in black and white, expecting people to take the bait, rather than do the research to find out said evidence is nowhere to be found in the WikiLeaks archives.
    That would have been my point the entire time if you'd actually cared to have a discussion rather than just attacking everything that upsets your worldview.

    It is reasonable to assume that the Russians hacked into the servers, because Any intelligence agency worth their salt would be taking advantage of an unsecured, private server. That does NOT mean they are behind the leaks. Not only do they have nothing to gain because the Russians view the US elections as completely rigged (so the documents are more useful if kept and held over Hillary's head), but there are numerous other actors who have both the means and the motivation to break into those servers. Wikileaks for starters because Assange has been imprisoned in an embassy for the last five years and probably has a resulting grudge against Obama and Hillary.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 13th Oct 2016 at 10:42.

Page 43 of 558 FirstFirst ... 3813182328333839404142434445464748535863687378838893143293543 ... 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
  •