This is topic Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center 2016 in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=060130

Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
We don't have one of these yet. Is that a good thing? I don't know.

I hope Trump loses. Don't vote for Trump.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
but trump talks tough and says his mind and hates minorities and has lots of great ideas and is an excellent businessman and picks the right people and really hates minorities. he will make america great again and build a ten billion dollar wall and make mexico pay for it and deport muslims and show the crooked media who's boss. trump 2016: i'm white
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
What is wrong with the country that these two are our options?
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
Well, you know my opinion about liberals and democrats and the left, but I would rather have evil Hillary as queen of the the world than Trump, demagogue and crazy of stone.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I think he'll make a much better President than either Clinton or Trump.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
What is wrong with the country that these two are our options?

First of all, you might try not buying into the decades of GOP smear.

But to your larger point, in order to be a successful politician in a democracy, one has to make a lot of compromises. People are often too lazy/busy/un-informed to understand the nuances and context. The press which is supposed to educate us makes more money by ginning up exciting headlines, fear, and controversy than it does by educating. People with money control too much of what the public hears.

That is a start.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
My mistake for asking
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Why was that a mistake? I gave you an honest answer albeit an incomplete one.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I buy zero GOP smear...I should just pick a different spot to talk politics.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So tell me what you think is so very wrong with Sec. Clinton. You may make valid points.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Well, she has pneumonia, for one.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
[Dont Know] A lot of people I trust say she lied about important stuff...


Please read the following and take it under consideration when replying:

I don't kno anything about the 2016 elections or the candidates, beyond who I voted for who did not get the nomination.

I can see how my comment seems like an inherent criticism...mostly I think Clinton will make an ok president...I just hope she wins, as Trump is not to be trusted with the U.S. military.

But I would have preferred someone more middle of the road
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
I am a Clinton supporter, fear the idea of what a President Trump would do. He's proven to be vindictive, petty, and enjoys the use and abuse of power.

But I can make a valid point about the problem with Secretary Clinton, and it does involve her health.

She has a trust issue, and I am beginning to fear, its that she doesn't trust us. Its hard to trust someone who doesn't trust you.

When she became unable to continue her campaign because of the pneumonia, she didn't trust the people enough to tell them. She made excuses, and told lies, about not feeling bad, being dehydrated, being OK. She was afraid that any admitting of illness on her part would be used against her, so she didn't trust the people with the truth.

This was what she did wrong with the email server. This is what she did wrong with Benghazi. Her first impulse, her first statement, is to cover up any mistakes.

I don't blame her. The right has a way of manufacturing scary conspiracies out of minor mistakes. From Death Panels to She was Asleep During Benghazi, to Whitewater, any slight misstep is blown out of proportion. Her reaction to these mistakes, missteps, and bad luck is to deny, get angry, build walls, and by trying to spin them away, build distrust.

Still, her mistakes seem...common. Her brilliance with policy is undeniable. You may not like her politics, but she has not gone out of her way to hurt people.

Mr. Trump, who takes glee in using his catch phrase, "Your Fired!", who lied to students of Trump University, who demonstrated his pettiness with "I'm not ready to support Paul Ryan", and who has a way to close and supportive appreciation with Czar Vladimir Putin has gone out of his way to hurt people.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
She's also a lot more hawkish than she's given credit for.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I just mind the attacks against her body...if one has a problem with her policy or her ideology or her character or track record...but the size of her breasts and thighs? Not cool.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Where exactly are you having your political discussions?
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Scott, yes she is more hawkish than she lets on, but over the weekend Donald Trump said he'd attack Iranian ships in international waters because the crew made rude gestures to our navy ships and thier crew. That's not Hawkish, that's psycho. I don't want my relatives in the military dieing in a war because some punk Iranian flew the bird.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Trump is attacked often for the way he looks.

They're both pretty hideous.

Actually, as a species, humans are kind of hideous. Big head, spindly limbs, squinty eyeballs...it's a wonder any of us find mates.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I don't want my relatives in the military dieing in a war because some punk Iranian flew the bird.
An Iranian punk band is EXACTLY what the Middle East needs, actually.

**

I agree with you about Trump, by the way.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Where exactly are you having your political discussions?

There is meme about KFC is having a Hilary special...one left wing, two small breasts and two fat thighs...it's a meme, her body isn't a point of discussion
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Points against Clinton.

1) She's an establishment politician. The mess we're in, she's been in the halls of power while that was happening.

2) Related to 1), she's very cozy with Wall Street. She takes their money both for speeches and in campaign contributions. I don't foresee her doing anything to fight those leeches.

3) As noted, she's a warhawk. Iraq, Syria, Libya. All disasters, and all supported by her. What was the last military action that she actually opposed? Vietnam? And I'm just guessing on that due to her age at the time.

4) She has become extremely skittish of the press, the media, and publicity in general. The attacks on her, both deserved and undeserved, have caused this, and I have absolutely no faith in her willingness to be transparent and open about things.

5) Like her husband, her policy positions seem to be wedded to the polls. Iraq, gay marriage, etc. I much prefer my politicians to do what they feel is right regardless of how it impacts their reelection chances. Which neatly explains my love affair with Sanders. We don't elect politicians to do what we say and act on the whim of the electorate; we elect them because we believe that they have the wisdom to make good decisions in difficult situations where the future can't be seen.

-----

As for body shaming, one stupid joke passed around Facebook hardly equals the naked statues of Trump put up in five major cities. If that were done to Clinton the same liberals snickering behind their hands about the statues would be screaming bloody murder.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
While that's certainly true, I think Trump is still far ahead in terms of body attacks over his public career.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Well of course he is, but he's a vile person. I like to think that my side is better, and am all too often diappointed when they don't act that way.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I looked up the nude statues (he has been castrated btw, or as Ginger, the artist behind the statues says, "The emperor has no balls") ...

The part I don't get is...
quote:
They were placed there by the anarchist collective Indecline, which among other projects has also glued the names of black men killed by police officers onto blank stars in the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
...how this group represents "your side"...Are you an anarchist?

http://time.com/4458022/donald-trump-nude-statues/
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
I tried really hard to not snicker gleefully at the statues.

I failed.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
No, Stone Wolf. I'm a liberal. I'm against the crooked paid for government that is represented by both sides at the moment. What I meant, and what I thought was pretty obvious, was that I was of the belief that my side (Liberal/Democrat) was not representative of the things that I dislike, and when they prove that they actually are, that I find it especially disapointing as time goes by that the two sides aren't all that different.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I tried really hard to not snicker gleefully at the statues.

I failed.

Fair enough.

How would you react to naked statues of HRC?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
No, Stone Wolf. I'm a liberal. I'm against the crooked paid for government that is represented by both sides at the moment. What I meant, and what I thought was pretty obvious, was that I was of the belief that my side (Liberal/Democrat) was not representative of the things that I dislike, and when they prove that they actually are, that I find it especially disapointing as time goes by that the two sides aren't all that different.

Hmmmm...I'm a middle of the road extremist...so I kinda expext both outliers to be out of focus. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
We don't have one of these yet. Is that a good thing? I don't know.

I hope Trump loses. Don't vote for Trump.

I've thought about making one of these every week for the last few months.

Couldn't bring myself to do it this year.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I tried really hard to not snicker gleefully at the statues.

I failed.

Fair enough.

How would you react to naked statues of HRC?

With disgust for the creator.

As Rakeesh pointed out, Trump has spent a good chunk of his public life mocking physical features of women and his opponents. HRC has not. To put it another way, how do you feel about locking up a criminal behind bars for X amount of years? How do you feel about locking up an innocent person for the same amount of years?

I generally don't support bullying a bully, which is what the statues represented. It doesn't do anything productive. But he can go suck on it.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I don't blame you.

It's a truly sad state when we're stuck with Clinton versus Trump. We're either going to get punched in the face or get a bullet in the face.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Points against Clinton.

3) As noted, she's a warhawk. Iraq, Syria, Libya. All disasters, and all supported by her. What was the last military action that she actually opposed? Vietnam? And I'm just guessing on that due to her age at the time.


I don't dispute the basic narrative of her as a warhark. But I do perhaps dispute this version of history.

She did not, to my recollection, support the Iraq War. She did vote for the resolution that ended up being the authorizing document for Bush to take us to war, but she was very much against the war at the time and was a critic throughout its execution. She voted for the Senate resolution because she thought it made the American hand stronger at the negotiating table for a diplomatic solution. And that's not a cop out, that's how negotiating works. Carrots and sticks work a lot better if your stick is actually a stick. The UN needed a push to press for inspections with the threat of war looming. What she didn't know, and what most people didn't know AT THE TIME, was that Bush literally lied to Congress about the situation in Iraq, and never intended to use the resolution for the diplomatic route. Trusting her president was, as it turns out, pretty naive, but it wasn't a vote in support of war.

And thus far we really haven't done much of anything in Syria that's made it at all worse than it would have been if we'd done zero. In fact, you could argue (and many have) that Syria came about because of our INACTION, not because of anything Hillary supported. In fact, she was pushing for Obama to do something earlier in the conflict when it might have made a difference. I don't know if it actually would have or not, but the current American policy towards Syria is not one of her making or really one of her choosing or support. Syria is a mess for a lot of reasons, but none of them are a result of something Hillary supported.

Libya, I'll grant you, was terribly handled. But I'm not sure we can lay that at her feet. She supported an intervention to stop what at the time looked like a genocide in the making. She isn't in charge of the armed forces or the executive branch, and would not have been responsible for planning or executing for the aftermath of the initial action. Clearly a LOT of people messed up on that one pretty badly. She's not blameless in that one, but I also think it's hard to hold people accountable for things they don't have enough direct control over.

Hillary is a warhawk, at least it's a persona she's built up over time whether she wanted to or not. But at least her foreign policy seems to operate within some sort of doctrine. These days, that's apparently a pretty huge pro.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
I don't blame you.

It's a truly sad state when we're stuck with Clinton versus Trump. We're either going to get punched in the face or get a bullet in the face.

Aaaand I will take the face punch for 500, Alex.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I will take the bullet.

Sho'nuff
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
I understand Heisenberg's points against Ms. Clinton, but lets compare them to Mr. Trump.

Points against Clinton vs Trump on those same points.

1) She's an establishment politician. The mess we're in, she's been in the halls of power while that was happening. Trump has been the wealthy briber of politicians who brags how he knows how to manipulate that system. He is not an establishment politician, he is an establishment civilian who created his fortune by abusing that system and the politicians its corrupted.

The establishment politicians may be the ho's, but Trump has been the pimp, and you can't fight sex trafficking by putting the pimps in charge.

2) Related to 1), she's very cozy with Wall Street. She takes their money both for speeches and in campaign contributions. I don't foresee her doing anything to fight those leeches. Trump is one of the leeches. He owes or does/has done business with most of those on Wall Street. Their kids grew up with his kids. How outside Wall Street is he?

3) As noted, she's a warhawk. Iraq, Syria, Libya. All disasters, and all supported by her. What was the last military action that she actually opposed? Vietnam? And I'm just guessing on that due to her age at the time--As Darth noted earlier, Trump has been even more of a warhawk. Just this week he threatened to attack the Iranian navy in international waters because they were disrespectful of our troops. He has threatened to carpet bomb parts of Syria where ISIS has a presence, without care of the vast majority of innocent civilians living there. He wants all our friends and allies to nuke-up. He has gone after every threat to the US from China to Palestine--except for the recently aggressive Russia. Putin, a true Warhawk, Trump admires and wants to back down too.

4) She has become extremely skittish of the press, the media, and publicity in general. The attacks on her, both deserved and undeserved, have caused this, and I have absolutely no faith in her willingness to be transparent and open about things. Trump is likewise skittish of any press where they ask him questions of import. He has bunker-ed down in Fox News for the past two months, and personally attacked reporters who give him hard questions. I have NO faith in his transparency either.

5) Like her husband, her policy positions seem to be wedded to the polls. Iraq, gay marriage, etc. I much prefer my politicians to do what they feel is right regardless of how it impacts their reelection chances. Which neatly explains my love affair with Sanders. We don't elect politicians to do what we say and act on the whim of the electorate; we elect them because we believe that they have the wisdom to make good decisions in difficult situations where the future can't be seen. Meanwhile Mr. Trump's position changes on an hourly basis. He tells people exactly what they want to hear, and tells the next group exactly what they want to hear even if they are opposite. He has proclaimed that he will get rid of the deficit within a year of taking office. He has also proclaimed he will spend more on the VA, and greatly increase spending on the military, and cut taxes--especially those corporate taxes he faces. How can he do all of this? He spoke to a group of business owners in February and said that international competition is good for the country, "When the American worker realizes that you can move your business overseas, they will realize they need to work for less." Two days later he denied he ever suggested that American workers should make less money.

Yes, there are questions about how great Ms. Clinton will be. Yet it seems that Mr. Trump fails those same questions by a much larger margin.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
What she didn't know, and what most people didn't know AT THE TIME, was that Bush literally lied to Congress about the situation in Iraq, and never intended to use the resolution for the diplomatic route. Trusting her president was, as it turns out, pretty naive, but it wasn't a vote in support of war.

I'd like to add something here, *most* people at the time knew Bush was a liar. Let's not forget how amazingly unpopular he was at the time with most people. They probably didn't know precisely what he was lying about, but they definitely didn't believe the guy. This Pew poll is the closest poll in time that I could find and it shows that majorities rejected that "The US believes the Saddam is a threat" in the UK, France, Germany, and Russia. It was this way in Canada if I recall correctly as well. Keep in mind that four of these countries are NATO allies of the US and they still didn't really believe the US, we're not even including the huge numbers of people skeptical of Bush outside of NATO.

I mention this not just for the historical record, but it does go to how we should see Clinton. For her to believe someone that was so transparently wrong, that so many people in the world managed to see through, it does go to Clinton's judgement and gullibility.

Also someone would like to add more context on that Iraq War vote (my emphasis)
quote:
I do just have to say this -- the legislation, the authorization had the title, an authorization to use U.S. military force, U.S. military force, in Iraq. I think everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/

This does feed nicely into Libya.

quote:
In one pointed conversation, the officials suggested Mrs. Clinton was engaging in the same misleading tactics as the George W. Bush administration when it went to war with Iraq in 2003 claiming the country had large stocks weapons of mass destruction, a claim that proved to be inaccurate.
...
Mrs. Clinton ultimately became the most powerful advocate for using U.S. military force to dethrone Gadhafi, both in her closed-door meetings with Mr. Obama, who ultimately made the decision, and in public with allies and the news media.
...
The intelligence community had few facts to back up Mrs. Clinton’s audacious predictions, officials told The Times.
In fact, the Pentagon’s judgment was that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting large civilian casualties as he cracked down on the rebels based in Benghazi, the officials said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/


Ominous for the future, I'd say. It's one thing to make a mistake in judgement, even if its a really obvious one. To not learn from it, that's another thing altogether.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Trump has been even more of a warhawk.

On this point I'd have to disagree. The guy has a big mouth, but keep in mind he's also said a whole lot of isolationist rhetoric, saying he would only defend countries that would pay for it, becoming more conciliatory with Russia, etc.

In fact, the Clinton campaign has cashed in on this themselves
quote:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s know-nothing isolationism has led many neocons to flee the Republican ticket. And some, like Kagan, are actively helping Clinton, whose hawkishness in many ways resembles their own.

The event raised $25,000 for Clinton. Two rising stars in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, Amanda Sloat and Julianne Smith, also spoke.

The way they described Clinton’s foreign policy vision suggested that if elected president in November, she will escalate tensions with Russia, double down on military belligerence in the Middle East, and generally ignore the American public’s growing hostility to intervention.

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/
 
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I will take the bullet.

Sho'nuff

I am sick of hearing these BS superman stories about the WASSSAAA legendary Bruce Leroy catching bullets with his teeth. CATCHES BULLETS WITH HIS TEETH? Please.
 
Posted by Sho'nuff's Posse (Member # 3649) on :
 
You tell him Sho! You tell him!
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
I understand Heisenberg's points against Ms. Clinton, but lets compare them to Mr. Trump.

Points against Clinton vs Trump on those same points.

1) She's an establishment politician. The mess we're in, she's been in the halls of power while that was happening. Trump has been the wealthy briber of politicians who brags how he knows how to manipulate that system. He is not an establishment politician, he is an establishment civilian who created his fortune by abusing that system and the politicians its corrupted.

The establishment politicians may be the ho's, but Trump has been the pimp, and you can't fight sex trafficking by putting the pimps in charge.

2) Related to 1), she's very cozy with Wall Street. She takes their money both for speeches and in campaign contributions. I don't foresee her doing anything to fight those leeches. Trump is one of the leeches. He owes or does/has done business with most of those on Wall Street. Their kids grew up with his kids. How outside Wall Street is he?

3) As noted, she's a warhawk. Iraq, Syria, Libya. All disasters, and all supported by her. What was the last military action that she actually opposed? Vietnam? And I'm just guessing on that due to her age at the time--As Darth noted earlier, Trump has been even more of a warhawk. Just this week he threatened to attack the Iranian navy in international waters because they were disrespectful of our troops. He has threatened to carpet bomb parts of Syria where ISIS has a presence, without care of the vast majority of innocent civilians living there. He wants all our friends and allies to nuke-up. He has gone after every threat to the US from China to Palestine--except for the recently aggressive Russia. Putin, a true Warhawk, Trump admires and wants to back down too.

4) She has become extremely skittish of the press, the media, and publicity in general. The attacks on her, both deserved and undeserved, have caused this, and I have absolutely no faith in her willingness to be transparent and open about things. Trump is likewise skittish of any press where they ask him questions of import. He has bunker-ed down in Fox News for the past two months, and personally attacked reporters who give him hard questions. I have NO faith in his transparency either.

5) Like her husband, her policy positions seem to be wedded to the polls. Iraq, gay marriage, etc. I much prefer my politicians to do what they feel is right regardless of how it impacts their reelection chances. Which neatly explains my love affair with Sanders. We don't elect politicians to do what we say and act on the whim of the electorate; we elect them because we believe that they have the wisdom to make good decisions in difficult situations where the future can't be seen. Meanwhile Mr. Trump's position changes on an hourly basis. He tells people exactly what they want to hear, and tells the next group exactly what they want to hear even if they are opposite. He has proclaimed that he will get rid of the deficit within a year of taking office. He has also proclaimed he will spend more on the VA, and greatly increase spending on the military, and cut taxes--especially those corporate taxes he faces. How can he do all of this? He spoke to a group of business owners in February and said that international competition is good for the country, "When the American worker realizes that you can move your business overseas, they will realize they need to work for less." Two days later he denied he ever suggested that American workers should make less money.

Yes, there are questions about how great Ms. Clinton will be. Yet it seems that Mr. Trump fails those same questions by a much larger margin.

I find myself having to repeat this seemingly everywhere, but my pointing out Clinton's faults is not the same as me endorsing Trump or even defending him. Trump is worse in seemingly every way then Clinton. She is by far the better choice. That does not make her a good choice.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'll put it this way: the race is uncomfortably close. If what you're saying has a substantial chance of reducing anti-Trump turnout, shut the hell up.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
No?

People deserve to know what they're electing. So why don't you shut the hell up about me shutting the hell up?
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
You said you want Clinton to be elected over Trump, yet you are continuously "pointing out Clinton's faults". If this discourages some people from voting for her, what realistic purpose does it serve to continue to do so?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
No?

People deserve to know what they're electing. So why don't you shut the hell up about me shutting the hell up?

I never thought this would happen...but I agree w/ Heisenberg
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I am completely unsurprised by that. While you two hold different positions on a number of topics, you're very closely aligned on the Dunning-Kruger scale.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
You said you want Clinton to be elected over Trump, yet you are continuously "pointing out Clinton's faults". If this discourages some people from voting for her, what realistic purpose does it serve to continue to do so?

Because part of the issue here is that there is no good choice. There is only a less bad one. And if people want to act like Clinton is puppies and rainbows then it rubs me the wrong way. There are numerous serious issues with her. Let me put it like this; I'm of the opinion that anyone turned off enough by this to not want to vote Clinton will be inspired to still vote because of how much worse Trump is.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is.
Nice Tom, super nice.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
A vote for Hilary is a vote against Trump.

I'm not pro Clinton, in fact I'm against her, but I'm a straight up Trump hater...if he gets his hands on our military, mark my words, something BAD will happen.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Let me put it like this; I'm of the opinion that anyone turned off enough by this to not want to vote Clinton will be inspired to still vote because of how much worse Trump is.

Anyone? Do you have any evidence of this?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sho'nuff:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I will take the bullet.

Sho'nuff

I am sick of hearing these BS superman stories about the WASSSAAA legendary Bruce Leroy catching bullets with his teeth. CATCHES BULLETS WITH HIS TEETH? Please.
Who's the master?

I am.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Tom: Could you be a little less, I dunno, cruel? I mean it's impressive, but the direction we're heading makes me tired.

Heisenberg: Less wrath, please.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
*confused* Did some stuff get deleated?
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
What is it that you think I have a low ability in, Tom?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'll put it this way: the race is uncomfortably close. If what you're saying has a substantial chance of reducing anti-Trump turnout, shut the hell up.

The Emperor wears dirty underpants! I've seen them! You've seen them! We have all seen the skidmarks!

TELL EVERYONE!

Silence is capitulation.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Let me put it like this; I'm of the opinion that anyone turned off enough by this to not want to vote Clinton will be inspired to still vote because of how much worse Trump is.

Anyone? Do you have any evidence of this?
No, I don't. But I'm comfortable saying that I think that most people will. And at the end of the day, it's not my job to be Clinton's cheerleader.

JB - I'm honestly confused which post here of mine you're having an issue with.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
We are not suppose to say bad words (or even the reduced versions of those bad words) per TOS. I would start there.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Let me put it like this; I'm of the opinion that anyone turned off enough by this to not want to vote Clinton will be inspired to still vote because of how much worse Trump is.

Anyone? Do you have any evidence of this?
No, I don't. But I'm comfortable saying that I think that most people will. And at the end of the day, it's not my job to be Clinton's cheerleader.


No one has asked you to be. But you prefer one outcome over another and your actions seem to be undermining the possibilities for that outcome. Or at least, not helping.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Hey BB...What's so impressive about Tom calling me and Heisenberg egomaniacal retards?

Also, what did Heisenberg do to warrant your comment?

Also also theamazeeaz...where did Heisenberg cuss? I looked, but couldn't find it.

I'm getting super confused
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
SW: I was remarking on his ability to say mean stuff without saying mean stuff.

Don't read anything personal into it.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Okay [Smile]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
I'm still confused about how Libya is Clinton's fault. At the time, it seemed like everybody was asking for an intervention: Europe (UK and France especially), the Arab League, a credible opposition in Libya. Sure the intervention wasn't supposed to be regime change but mission creep was hardly unexpected. The US largely stayed out of the ground war (or completely?) and left more or less than planned.

Sure it went to hell afterwards but we never signed up for the aftermath. Nor do I see how such an international event turned into Clinton's pet project.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Just because Europe wanted to do it didn't mean that the US had to.

The thing about the "credible oppositions" that have been funded in the ME by the US is that they all too often tend to be absolutely contemptible people whose only "positive" quality is that they are willing to fight against oppositions that we dislike. Libya is currently a hotbed of jihadist activity; was that worth removing
Gaddafi?

Clinton didn't have the power to call the shots, but I don't remember her being a voice of moderation or making any attempt to talk the other nations out of it.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Hey BB...What's so impressive about Tom calling me and Heisenberg egomaniacal retards?

Also, what did Heisenberg do to warrant your comment?

Also also theamazeeaz...where did Heisenberg cuss? I looked, but couldn't find it.

I'm getting super confused

Um, you quoted the post with the offending section previously in this thread. Tom Davidson did too.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You are talking about "hell"...as in when Heisenberg said "shut the hell up"?

Golly gee wilikers! H-E-double hockey sticks.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
[No No]

I can't find the post that specifically bans actual curses and simulations, but our overlords request we not use foul language--- even weekend or censored forms of it. Even though we are all practically geriatric, this is still a "family board".

I have a potty mouth in real life, and rewrite my sentences all the time to avoid using or implying such words here. It's not hard.

If you still read Mr. Card's review, you will note that he still warns his readers of instances of foul language in films.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
[Dont Know]

Including "hell" or "crap" or "damn" or other pg swears is just silly, if you ask me...which you didn't.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Our personal opinions don't matter here. It's not my house and so it's not my rules.

Also, your first and third words are not pg swear words, pg-13 by today's standards, sure. But they are actual swear words by certain standards. They HAVE actual pg equivalents, which you, uh, forgot.

Funny story. My grandmother (who has dementia and is turning 98 this week) is often sleepy and uses your third word to say how sleepy she is, very very often. Our stock response is to suggest a nap, or tea or say, yes of course, you are really old. I've always wondered if she expects us to be shocked by her obscenity, but ... no one cares.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
I remember Libya and the Arab Spring. Here was a state sponsor of terrorism, who was guilty of blowing a plane over Scotland, and many other acts of violence against his people and others. His people rose up in rebellion to stop him. What were our choices?

Some people wanted us to help the democratic rebels.

Some people wanted us to stay out.

We took a moderate approach, which was support with air strikes so that the same bloody massacres that are happening now in Syria didn't happen then in Libya.

We did not topple the leader. We did not remove him. We just stopped his army from murdering his own people.

Yet now we call that Hawkish and the fate of the Libyan people is our fault--is Hillary Clinton's fault?

She was secretary of state. She did try negotiations and peace talks, while the hawks in the US and the pro-democratic folks in the US complained about the massacres of freedom fighters.

"We the greatest democracy should support others seeking democracy from the tyrants and terrorists of the world."

So where did it go wrong? Simple. The US has become great about planning for the war, but the west as a whole can not plan for the peace.

Before Hitler surrendered in WWII whole divisions of Allied forces were planning, training, and preparing for the peace that was to follow. Those plans either were missing or criminally underdeveloped in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.

There was Secretary Clinton's mistake in Libya. Not bombing a monster, not being unable to help our team in Benghazi, but in not creating a credible post-war plan for Libya.

Trump has a plan. He's mentioned it several times. If we help Libya overthrow its tyrant, or help Iraq defeat its crazy Hussein, we need to send in a permanent force to take their oil. How many troops would that cost? How much $$ would that cost? How do you keep the wells, pipelines, shipping centers safe when the people of that country think your stealing their oil? How do you stop hordes of natives from joining terrorist groups when you are taking their most valuable resource? Clinton may have failed to plan for the peace, but Trumps plan for the peace would have been devastatingly worse by exponential amounts.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Darth Mauve

I would put forth that until we do regain the ability and fortitude to plan for the peace, that we shouldn't be in the business of knocking off dictators, *even when* they are committing atrocities.

A bloodthirsty secular dictator is an awful thing, but I think it's the lesser of two evils between that and having literally genocidal jihadists running things.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
You are talking about "hell"...as in when Heisenberg said "shut the hell up"?

Golly gee wilikers! H-E-double hockey sticks.

I'm going to take a glass half full approach and assume that you're doing this in an effort to help me out.

Please stop. You of all people should know that I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself, quite strongly when I feel the need or urge to.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I was just struggling to catch up...don't mind me [Wink]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Sure it went to hell afterwards but we never signed up for the aftermath. Nor do I see how such an international event turned into Clinton's pet project.

You break it, you buy it. Even the Republicans (via Colin Powell) knew that before going into Iraq. The Democrats have to be held to at least the same for their wars.


quote:
On Libya, for instance, advisers in 2011 were eager for her to take credit for the ouster of dictator Moammar Gaddafi. Clinton was initially skeptical of using U.S. military power in Libya, but became an advocate for the idea within the administration when it became clear that Arab and NATO nations were eager to form a coalition.

Aide Jake Sullivan compiled a lengthy timeline of Clinton’s activities in developing policy in Libya, saying “it shows [Clinton’s] leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s libya policy from start to finish.”

...
Around the same time, longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal hailed Clinton for the fall of Gaddafi. “Just a quick note: First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-kept-a-close-eye-on-her-reputation-state-e-mails-show/2015/09/30/cf24a130-67aa-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

She owns this one, as her own aides acknowledged.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
I just saw a poll out of Massachusetts that had Clinton at 47%. It had Trump significantly lower, but still, I was surprised she didn't have an outright majority.

I went to fivethirtyeight.com and looked at their Now-cast poll aggregation, and sure enough the poll I saw was an outlier. But I was surprised how low her actual total was; currently it stands at 52.6%. So then I looked across all the states, and there are a surprising number (to me at least) where neither Clinton nor Trump holds a clear majority*.

Clinton Majority: California, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont

Trump Majority: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming

No Clear Majority: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut*, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana*, Iowa, Kansas*, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey*, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, South Dakota*, Texas*, Utah*, Washington, Wisconsin

I'm quite surprised by several states, like Texas, Rhode Island, and Delaware that I would have thought would have a strong majority and don't. Part of that is having an anomalously viable third party candidate in Gary Johnson, but a much bigger part is just that a lot of voters simply can't bring themselves to support either major party candidate.

(*) I've been a little loose here (in order to emphasize my point) and counted as 'No Clear Majority' a few states, indicated with asterisks, where the model currently does give one candidate or the other a small majority, but where it didn't at some point within the last week or so.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Where are you seeing Minnesota with no clear majority? All 3 of the forecast options show it with a 70%+ chance of Clinton winning.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I don't get it. The man is a crook and a cheat and a liar. He denies doing or saying things that there is video and text evidence for. He short changes contractors and doesn't fulfill contracts. He basically admitted to not paying his taxes while simultaneously complaining about infrastructure that he freeloads off of.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
Where are you seeing Minnesota with no clear majority? All 3 of the forecast options show it with a 70%+ chance of Clinton winning.

Not the probability of winning; the actual polling values (the graph on the left, not the right).

<edit>Just to clarify: in many of those states, like Texas or New Jersey, one of the candidates is clearly leading, and so have a high probability of winning the state. But they don't have a clear majority of support, because many respondents either favor third-party candidates or don't express any preference at all.</edit>
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
I found 538's national level aggregation from 2012. It tells the same story. At this point in that election Obama was running at 51.5% and Romney at 47.5%. This year, Clinton is running at 42.5% and Trump at 41.0%. In 2012, 99% of the electorate favored one of the two major candidates. In 2016, only 83.5% do. About 8% are opting for a third-party candidate, but the other 8% just don't support anyone.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
individually if i didn't already think trump was fully contempt-worthy he would have sealed it with his abstruse rambling in favor of his own little terrible blend of repackaged Laffernomics.

like even just ignoring that his personality is the kind that can't not be baited into bragging that he cheats the U.S. tax system and that he was structured and openly excited to profit off of a horrendous national recession, and that he'd shoot enemy soldiers because he felt they were insulting him etc etc

his tax policy is utterly unworkable

it is a mathematical embarrassment

that and his foreign relations agitations make him so painfully unsuited to the office of the presidency that any goofy dunderheaded crap hillary gets herself into is utterly irrelevant. there is no comparison. there's no equivalence.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Also, there isn't the same effect in the Senate races. Most of those have 96-97% consolidated support for the two major candidates. So the disgust people are feeling over the major party presidential candidates doesn't appear to be bleeding over into other contests.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
Where are you seeing Minnesota with no clear majority? All 3 of the forecast options show it with a 70%+ chance of Clinton winning.

Not the probability of winning; the actual polling values (the graph on the left, not the right).

<edit>Just to clarify: in many of those states, like Texas or New Jersey, one of the candidates is clearly leading, and so have a high probability of winning the state. But they don't have a clear majority of support, because many respondents either favor third-party candidates or don't express any preference at all.</edit>

And all the polls there but one range from +4 Clinton to +13 Clinton, with one tie, and you don't have it with an *. So I'm still not seeing it as in play.

ETA: Ok, I see what you mean by "majority." You're literally talking about being over 50%. With a 3rd party candidate in the race, I'm just not concerned about that.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
Where are you seeing Minnesota with no clear majority? All 3 of the forecast options show it with a 70%+ chance of Clinton winning.

Not the probability of winning; the actual polling values (the graph on the left, not the right).

<edit>Just to clarify: in many of those states, like Texas or New Jersey, one of the candidates is clearly leading, and so have a high probability of winning the state. But they don't have a clear majority of support, because many respondents either favor third-party candidates or don't express any preference at all.</edit>

And all the polls there but one range from +4 Clinton to +13 Clinton, with one tie, and you don't have it with an *. So I'm still not seeing it as in play.

ETA: Ok, I see what you mean by "majority." You're literally talking about being over 50%. With a 3rd party candidate in the race, I'm just not concerned about that.

The question is volatility. In the end, everyone who votes will vote for someone. Right now, relative to 2012, there seem to be a lot of undecided voters, especially if you factor in that 3rd party candidates tend to lose support over time.

So where does that 16% of the vote go? Does it split evenly between the two candidates? Or swing more toward one or the other? This chart maps out how undecideds broke in several close Senate contests over the past few elections. I'm not sure of the methodology, but it appears that in most cases the 'undecideds' seem to break disproportionately toward one candidate or another.

If this translates to the Presidential election, it means that this election could still be a blowout either way, with Trump winning Oregon or Minnesota, or Clinton winning Georgia or Arizona. Or, if the shifts are idiosyncratic, it could mean a large deviation from the fairly consistent red/blue maps we've seen over the last four elections.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
I went back and looked at several more years. Here are the approximate percentages of undecideds (including 3rd party candidates):

2008: 5%
2004: 7.5%
2000: 9%
1996: 11.5%
1992: 16%
1988: 10.5%
1984: 5.5%
1980: 22%

So, the two elections that look kind of like this one were 1992 and 1980. In 1980, the undecideds broke strongly for Reagan, who had been roughly tied in the polls, and he won in a landslide. In 1992 the undecideds settled on Ross Perot, and Clinton rode his edge with the remaining voters to a comfortable win.

Of course, the undecided number in 1980 was inflated by John Anderson's third party bid, which has a lot of similarities to Gary Johnson's. It's not surprising that when Anderson's support evaporated, most of it went to Reagan, since Anderson was a Republican (albeit a relatively liberal one). I don't know what would happen if Johnson's support went away, and I don't know what will happen to the other 8% of voters who haven't made up their mind yet.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
I think that's where those percentages in the Nowcast come into play. I find the idea of MN (I live here, that's why I was surprised why you put it in the category you did) going for Trump laughable. But I live in Minneapolis, and I know that the suburbs and smaller towns are more conservative. So the 30% chance of going Trump is probably pretty accurate. But is the undecideds are distributed evenly throughout the state, we'll go blue. Like we have every election since 1972.
 
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
 
Trump is a minor deity, a demon if you prefer.
Beware the national (American) psychodynamics of demonic possession at or in the polling booth, the unconscious desire to realize reprehensible wishes and other such instinctual impulses that have been repudiated and repressed in Disneyworld (the neoliberal-technocracy).

Why does anyone sign a bond with the devil?

Freud* argues that in the torment and perplexity of melancholic depression, a bond is signed with one to whom the sufferer (here the not quite fully absorbed post-modern "American" or "Global" citizen) ascribes the greatest therapeutic power -- and, of course, the direct substitute for a missing father (who has disappeared into the gap between Abraham Lincoln and Walt Disney).

*see "A Demonological Neurosis"
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Whelp, this was a fun week. Things are quite looking up for the Clinton campaign.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Tic Tacs
 
Posted by Elcheeko75 (Member # 13292) on :
 
Can Trump actually step down? Is there any legal way at this point to replace a candidate? Early voting has already started. I don't honestly believe Pence could pull it out at this point even if he became the candidate, but it's enough to make me nervous.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I was talking about this last night with a friend. There are never used laws from the 1800s that could be invoked for a last minute swap, though the ballots are printed at this point. The electoral college could also be used, where you vote for 'Trump' but the electors support his replacement.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Most of what I've read says that he's pretty much locked in. Deadlines have past in all states for getting someone on the ballot. Ballots themselves are printed. Heck in many places ballots have already been cast.

You could try a write-in campaign, but it'd be almost impossible at this point given the difficulty in getting everyone informed at the last minute.

The electoral college could try something, but, there are faithless elector laws in most states, and most states pretty strictly mandate how they have to vote.

It would be a legal tsunami that would throw things into chaos.

It's also not really legal issue, but there's a bait-and-switch issue there. Trump Trump Trump...and then at the last second you slip in Pence or Paul Ryan? There are a lot of Trump supporters as well as Democrats who would scream bloody murder, and rightfully so.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
For different reasons.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
President Clinton...first an black prez and now a woman! Yay! It's like...the future.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
President Clinton...first an black prez and now a woman! Yay! It's like...the future.

Still 25 or so days to go. Anything can happen.

There could be a Brexit Effect where more people actually support him than will admit to pollsters. Too many people could stay home and motivated Trump supporters could turn out in droves. More Wikileaks releases could turn up something genuinely devastating for Clinton.

It's not over until it's over.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I just can't see it happening
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I can.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
do you remember how i jumped up and down and celebrated that trump won the primary because it essentially surrendered the white house and the supreme court to the democratic party

i am happy to report that the state of the election is "still super over"
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I think it would take something truly earthshaking to be leaked from or about Clinton for Trump to have a shot. I'll still vote and am regularly encouraging others to vote for more than the top of the ticket, of course.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
It's going to be fun watching Trump self destruct...still a month to go and already cracks starting to show.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm still not resting easy. It LOOKS like his campaign is in a full-fledged collapse, but we've seen this for the last 7 months, when it seems like his campaign SHOULD have collapsed, when any other campaign would have collapsed, but he bounced back every single time.

I'll be satisfied a month from now when things are settled. And I'll be happy if she gets the Senate along with the White House.

But until then, no joy.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I think it would take something truly earthshaking to be leaked from or about Clinton for Trump to have a shot. I'll still vote and am regularly encouraging others to vote for more than the top of the ticket, of course.

Have you seen that awful state Amendment 1 that will be on the ticket?
 
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
 
It's nice to see intelligent people on this forum who seem to see how awful Trump is for this country (and the world). I watch the man and I can't understand his support. The alt-right movement has destroyed the Republican Party. It's so sad.

The NYT has clinton winning this election with a 92% likelihood. Seems about right.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Go visit Ornery. That will keep you from being too complacent.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff C.:
It's nice to see intelligent people on this forum who seem to see how awful Trump is for this country (and the world). I watch the man and I can't understand his support. The alt-right movement has destroyed the Republican Party. It's so sad.

The NYT has clinton winning this election with a 92% likelihood. Seems about right.

I kind of hate that the alt-right movement like the MRA movement is putrid and infected to the core, when on the surface a new conservative movement could be very healthy for our political discourse. Instead it's old garbage in new wrapping.

[ October 20, 2016, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I've been talking with some people from the old McCain campaign days about pushing what I'm calling "Boy Scout Conservatism". But, honestly, most of us have young kids now and don't have the time or energy for what feels like a hopeless task.

If there's one thing that Republican base has demonstrated since 2000, it's that character, honesty, and responsibility don't matter to them.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Also, "I'll keep you in suspense about whether I'll accept the results of the election."
.
.
.
In a way, this shouldn't be a surprise. The Republican party has been pursuing a strategy of petty treason for the entirety of President Obama's administration. And Donald Trump was the most prominent leader of the unconscionable attack on our country's stability that was the insane, racist Birther movement and has been trying to build up this rigged election narrative.

But man, I didn't think even he would go that far. I thought it was him whining so that he and his supporters could make believe that he didn't really lose. If he doesn't walk that back and really freaking soon, the GOP needs to either completely disavow him or they need to be burnt to the ground.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What is "Boy Scout Conservatism"? Does it leave out women deliberately?

Beyond all the destruction of democracy in Trump's answer to the results question is the weirdness of the, "I'll keep you in suspense", bit. IT'S NOT A TV SHOW, DONALD!
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
At a guess...boy scout conservatives are kind, loyal, helpful, true and prepared.

And has NOTHING to do w/ gender.

But I was guessing, so, [Dont Know]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Those things are not specific to conservatives, either, so I still don't understand.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Those things are not specific to conservatives, either, so I still don't understand.

If it was specific to conservatives, then they wouldn't have to add "conservatives" to the end of it.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'll hopefully have more time to flesh this out tomorrow or this weekend, but Boy Scout conservatism is an attempt to restore/bring valuing character, honesty, responsibilty etc. to the conservative spectrum of our political landscape, in large part through reference to the principles of Boy Scouts.

Of course it is not an attempt to exclude women.

The Scout Law is:
A Scout is
Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Clean,
Brave,
And Reverent

None of the those apply to Donald Trump.

There's a lot more to it than that and I do believe that this represents some things that are not well represented in contemporary liberalism.
 
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 
Why not just say "Scout Conservatism" and leave no doubt? Words matter.

Conservation is a conservative principle. It would be nice to see a bit of a realignment of what the Republican party stands for, angling back toward these character traits, but also less of the religious right feel.

The Democrats are likely to have a really hard election in 202, but I wonder if the GOP can reform fast enough to take advantage, or if they'll need more time in the desert.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I doubt it's an attempt exclude women, but I have to wonder who thought that, say, an effort to include more women in the party-such as by supporting women candidates-would be benefited by the unofficial movement name 'Boy Scout Republicans'? I mean as advertising it just sounds silly.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
"Non assbagery" conservative.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I'll hopefully have more time to flesh this out tomorrow or this weekend, but Boy Scout conservatism is an attempt to restore/bring valuing character, honesty, responsibilty etc. to the conservative spectrum of our political landscape, in large part through reference to the principles of Boy Scouts.

Of course it is not an attempt to exclude women.

The Scout Law is:
A Scout is
Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Clean,
Brave,
And Reverent

None of the those apply to Donald Trump.

There's a lot more to it than that and I do believe that this represents some things that are not well represented in contemporary liberalism.

Could you elaborate? Which of those qualities do you feel are not well represented in contemporary liberalism?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
To clarify my earlier point: i don't think it's a deliberate, conscious attempt at exclusion because why would they do that? But I also think it is an exclusion because...Boy Scouts. Boy. It's in the name.

I also think it's an effort to sidestep the problem Republicans have in really saying what is obvious about Trump. If they point out the dishonesty, dishonor, treason, racism by rebranding themselves not those things...why then they have to cop to those things in their support.

Instead, a nice oblique Boy Scout conservatism! They can indirectly market a return to virtue without having to acknowledge all the wickedness and cowardice that makes it necessary.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Christ you people make me tired.

I may get back to this, but I thought it might be a fun, interesting discussion. I'm not really interested in the slog it looks like it would be for me, talking with people who's only interest in what I'm saying is how they can tell me how wrong I am.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Well gosh, sorry to have inconvenienced you. Next time you bring up a topic and make a fundmanental statement that seems off, we can just skip over that or something.

The odd thing is that you don't appear to disagree with me at least, since your evaluation of the GOP base is much in line with my own. Or was it Kate's response to a direct statement that was so tiresome?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
But anyway, if you want to keep it strictly to a discussion of the Scouts you might have said so. To address that, aside from not thinking the GOP would actually mean it, I don't think that obedience and reverence are good watchwords. Even if they're qualified, and that's a whole other discussion.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I have no problems with representatives following the wishes of the people (obedience) or showing respect for the power they weild (reverence).

Also, I too find boots comments here wearysome.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:


There's a lot more to it than that and I do believe that this represents some things that are not well represented in contemporary liberalism.

Could you elaborate? Which of those qualities do you feel are not well represented in contemporary liberalism?
Was that a hard question? It wasn't meant to be.

[ October 21, 2016, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Stone_Wolf,

The last time we spoke, you said a number of things. I can document them, but for now I'll just reference the highlight where you suggested that my mother was a whore and that it was regrettable my father hadn't shot me to death when I was a child. You also sent a number of unwelcome and insulting emails, and I believe though cannot prove by other activity in my email followed through on a threat to sign me up for various spam.

If you've noticed, I've been happily not talking to you since that point nor did I reply to your emails. So having said all that: don't talk me, for obvious reasons.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
I'm in agreement that Rakeesh can request you not speak to him, StoneWolf. Please leave him be.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
K
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Was that a hard question? It wasn't meant to be.

I'm not sure it's a hard question exactly, more, a telling question...I think you, in particular, have strong reactions against any conservative sentiments, or perceived negatives of the left.

Where the tiredness comes in, it's like you are queuing up for a fight...like when you were shooting down (pun) the firearm safety test before purchase as being unreliable and untenable, when it currently exists in reality...and then silence when I point that out.

Or to put it another way...your comment is consistent a previous left fighter behavior, which can cause feelings of frustration and exhaustion w those trying to say/figgure something out.

But maybe it's just lil ol me. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Seriously, Stone_Wolf,

Statement: I think some of these thing are X

Me: Which things?

It was even a multiple choice question! [Smile]

What makes you think that "existing in reality" is proof against being "unreliable and untenable?"
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You're proving my point...it's an uphill battle here for conservatives and you are the tip of the spear
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Honey, if my asking softball questions is the "tip of the spear" you really are in trouble.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
First off, I ain't your honey.

Second, I have EVERY confidence that you would straight up riot if I condescended to you in that manner.

Third, soft ball, hard ball, it matters not, you could fight a conservative about the color of the sky on a clear day and it's wearysome.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I apologize. My intent was to soften my tone, not to condescend.

But, seriously, is it because Conservatives just want to state things without backing them up? In what way was my question tough?

"Could you elaborate" "AUGGGHHH. It's a trap!!!" [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I appreciate that.

Your question ISN'T tough! I even said so.

It was also NOT a question to me, so easy on the rhetoric.

The person the question was poised to has not returned as of yet.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Well you are the one complaining about it.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I apologize, you should be able to yell at ANYONE for not answering your questions...no matter if you asked them or not...as long as they "complain".

[Eek!]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Where have I yelled? Other than at Donald Trump. I wasn't really expecting him to answer.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"AUGGGHHH. It's a trap!!!" [Roll Eyes]

All caps = yelling.

You are also doing a bang up job on how you aren't crazy argumentative [Angst]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
That wasn't so much yelling at you as it was mocking you.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
SW, whenever you feel like you're besting someone in rhetoric on this board, please remember that you're almost certainly wrong about that.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Tom...please remember that rhe majority of your opinions are not something I care about.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No one believes that.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I do...really tom, look at most of our interactions...for literal years...I majoritativly just tell you to bugger off.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Okay. I'll retract: it is entirely possible that you believe that.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
If it makes you feel better I can simply ignore you entirely
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It is entirely possible that you believe that.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I'll hopefully have more time to flesh this out tomorrow or this weekend, but Boy Scout conservatism is an attempt to restore/bring valuing character, honesty, responsibilty etc. to the conservative spectrum of our political landscape, in large part through reference to the principles of Boy Scouts.

Of course it is not an attempt to exclude women.

The Scout Law is:
A Scout is
Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Clean,
Brave,
And Reverent

None of the those apply to Donald Trump.

There's a lot more to it than that and I do believe that this represents some things that are not well represented in contemporary liberalism.

I look forward to hearing more about this...sounds like a cross between a grass roots political movement and promise keepers.

I've known some very religious people who where equally dedicated to maintaining the gap between church and state and their religious beliefs.

I must admit only around here am I considered "conservative"...my father & father in law both consider me left of center.
 
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 
Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Clean,
Brave,
And Reverent

Of those, I'd feel comfortable putting all except for "loyal" and "reverent" in the liberal basket, and maybe some liberals would include the whole list. I just tend to lean toward the independent-thinker strain of liberalism -- and it's the implied "to authority" at the end of those that I'd suspect not the idea of being loyal or reverent itself. So if that's the model that conservatives want to use as the base of their value system, that sounds great.
 
Posted by hawser (Member # 13415) on :
 
Here's the latest about the presidential election.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/us-election-2016-polls-and-odds-tracker-latest-forecast-and-maps1/
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Their definition of toss-up is very very different from Nate Silver's.

For example:
Toss up: Minnesota is 88.1% Clinton; Maine is 85.6% Clinton.
Solid Republican Montana is 84.9% Trump. Solid South Dakota is 86.1% Trump.

I am amused that Texas is a toss-up now.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I'll hopefully have more time to flesh this out tomorrow or this weekend, but Boy Scout conservatism is an attempt to restore/bring valuing character, honesty, responsibilty etc. to the conservative spectrum of our political landscape, in large part through reference to the principles of Boy Scouts.

Of course it is not an attempt to exclude women.

The Scout Law is:
A Scout is
Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Clean,
Brave,
And Reverent

None of the those apply to Donald Trump.

There's a lot more to it than that and I do believe that this represents some things that are not well represented in contemporary liberalism.

Could you elaborate? Which of those qualities do you feel are not well represented in contemporary liberalism?
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
That wasn't so much yelling at you as it was mocking you.

So, was this you demonstrating the high quality "Helpfulness, Friendliness, Courteous, and Kindness" that you claim are well represented in contemporary liberalism?
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Well firstly, Kate's never claimed to be a perfect Christlike figure.

And secondly, you open yourself up to mockery so, so often.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Can we focus the mocking on Donald Trump? Thx.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
First - you might reread and note that I made no claims at all.

My total exchange with MrSquicky was asking for elaboration - whether they meant to exclude women by calling the movement something gender specific and by asking which characteristics he thought were not well represented from a list in which he said that he thought some were not well represented.

Second - a little friendly mocking (and a mild Star Wars meme) of your overreaction to what should have been pretty straightforward questions is really the kindest and most courteous reaction you deserve and my bothering to answer your questions is pretty darn helpful.

[ October 25, 2016, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Where did I overreact? Where did I overreact so badly as to (according to you) deserve to be mocked, but you, in an act of friendly kindness, pull the punch.

Keep in mind that your easy question was about someone's private, internal theory, that I LITERALLY could not answer.

[ October 25, 2016, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
If "all caps = yelling" as you posited, you "yelled" at me in your first post in this exchange. And at least three more times- including in a post complaining about my "yelling". You called me and my questions "wearisome" twice and me and implied that I was crazy. Also, the tip of the spear whatever that means.

Look, MrSquicky hardly needs you to leap to his defense. He can respond to me or not as he chooses.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You mock me for calling you the tip of the spear w/o even knowing what the phrase means?

I'm all but done w you
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
No. That wasn't mocking you; that was an example of you overreacting.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Do you know what that phrase means?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
*sigh* I know what it means to normal people - first into a war zone, elite soldiers who are the cutting edge in an attack. What it means to you? I couldn't really say but I am confident that it qualifies as an overreaction.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
"Normal people"

You aren't nice boots
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
No. That wasn't mocking you; that was an example of you overreacting.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Honey, if my asking softball questions is the "tip of the spear" you really are in trouble.

You fooled me.

My whole point is simply this:

I understand why MrSquiggy overreacted and expressed wearyness...you are the first to fight...the beginning of the resistance
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Are you entirely sure MrSquicky was reacting to my post?

Fooled you about what? Both of those are plain statements.

You might want to reread the exchange one more time.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Regardless of your intent, your words are causing hurt feelings, so, if that is something you care about, you might reconsider your approach.

Either way, I strongly feel the useful part of our interactions has ceased, if in fact, it ever existed.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Fooled me that your comment was not in fact mockery.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
For reference:

"Could you elaborate" "AUGGGHHH. It's a trap!!!" [Roll Eyes] was mocking you. The rest you can take at face value.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Regardless of your intent, your words are causing hurt feelings, so, if that is something you care about, you might reconsider your approach.
*laugh* SW, you have a fascinating method of social interaction. Do you find that it generally works for you?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

Either way, I strongly feel the useful part of our interactions has ceased, if in fact, it ever existed.

It didn't.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
For the record, I had a similar reaction to "Boy Scout conservatism" as I assume Kate did. 1) I'm sure it's not intentionally excluding women. 2) Regardless, to women, it feels exclusive/unwelcoming. Like the people coming up with it don't consider us worth recruiting for their movement. 3) Since the current GOP is failing to win women's votes, trying to start a reform movement in a way that feels unwelcoming to women is probably not the best option. 4) Not recognizing that is part of the problem -- you can say the intention "of course" isn't to exclude women all you want, but even the slightest bit of thought, if you cared about how women would react, would tell you the answer was "not well." The fact that you didn't come up with that on your own shows that you didn't think about it.

Women are over 50% of the population. We can't be treated as a demographic group to be won, there are as many subdivisions among us as there are among men, with similarly differing concerns. Any movement that doesn't include women in the development stage isn't going to work, because it's going to make these incredibly tone deaf mistakes. So if you want to start a movement that only appeals to a very specific segment of middle class white men, fine, boy scouts it is. But middle class white men are the demographic Republicans currently do best in. So the BEST I could see this doing is recruiting better (honest, trustworthy, loyal, brave) male candidates, which absolutely would be a good thing. But it's not going to save the Republican party, because you can't win an election with just white men anymore. And there's already signs that Republican women are moving away from the party in disgust over the party's continued support of Trump in light of the allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct. Any movement to restore the party to its former values that doesn't take that into account and actively work to get those voters back is just putting the party in a holding pattern.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Can we focus the mocking on Donald Trump? Thx.

Yes please
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Do you mind if I ask the genesis of your nick? It seems overtly masculine, but you just said "us" in reference to women.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It's phonetic.
 
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
 
#teamKate
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
What seems masculine about it?

Also, I specifically told you in another thread that I'm a woman, fairly recently.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
El is the masculine "the" in Spanish...

Jay is a boy's name...

And all I remember you saying was to be careful of masculine assumptions...when you misunderstood my joke about Stone_Henge_

And I already am already careful
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
It's my initials spelled out. LJ = ElJay. You're apparently not careful enough if after that you still thought I was male.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I never assumed
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
You called me "my brother." How is that not assuming?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
"My brother Stone_Henge_" is a joke based on my username. I tried to explain that to you.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Wow. You have a very odd definition of "explain." I just went back and reread, and you just repeated it a couple times. I don't see anything that could be considered an explanation, and honestly I had no idea what you were talking about until your last post here.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I am an only child, I do not banter w/ the title of "brother", as I've always wanted one and only felt as if I have trusted two male non blood relatives in my whole life enough to call them so.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Sorry for the miscommunication...altho please take into consideration that even a failed attempt at an explanation is still an attempt.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Had I simply repeated what you said, it would look like this: "ElJay, my brother" not, "My brother, Stone_Henge_" I then tried to expand on the joke..."we call him Hengy"...i.e. Stone_Dad_, Stone_Mom_ and myself, Stone_Wolf_, call Stone_Henge_, my brother, "Hengey".
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Please, somebody, take the shovel away.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I dislike you boots
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
You do banter with the title of brother.

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
"My brother Stone_Henge_" is a joke based on my username. I tried to explain that to you.

Joke = banter.

That's really irrelevant to the conversation, of course. Unless you're only interested in calling Boots wearisome for pointing out obvious sexism.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I do not lightly grant that title upon people, however, I am comfortable joking that I have brother for the sake of humor, if you see the distinction and therefore my point in mentioning in the first
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
And I didn't call boots herself tiresome (altho that seems the common take away [Dont Know] ) but her seemingly unrelenting argumenitivness and her disparaging comments are quite wearysome, I assure you.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm unconvinced that referencing a particular coda (that of the boy scouts) is in fact sexist.

I'll grant you it is as sexist as it is ageist, as I do not qualify myself as a boy.

But honestly, Mr.Squicky was suggesting the kernel of an idea, and simply referencing a known ideology, which happened to have "boy" in the name.

I happened to like the idea someone mentioned if just referring to it as "scout conservatives"...as aren't the tenants of the girl scouts the same as the boy ones?

That's why discussion and colaberation are such a great thing, however, this place, Hatrack, is becoming openly hostile to any conversation involving "conservatives", or so I see it at least.
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
I'm sorry, but is it really necessary for so many threads on this board to degenerate into this one-on-one bickering? It seems to happen quite a lot lately. There are a *ton* of interestingly titled threads here, and there is a wearisome number of them that end exactly this way. Personally, I would rather the board was less active, then to get my hopes up for interesting discussion when I see a thread bumped, only to come here and find this.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I apologize...I'm not trying to degenerate this thread, or participate in bickering.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
No, the girl scout tenants are not the same. They're separate organizations, since the boy scouts weren't interested in letting girls in.

Motto: The Girl Scout motto is "Be prepared." In the 1947 Girl Scout Handbook, the motto was explained this way: "A Girl Scout is ready to help out wherever she is needed. Willingness to serve is not enough; you must know how to do the job well, even in an emergency." The same holds true today.

Girl Scout Promise
On my honor, I will try:
To serve God and my country,
To help people at all times,
And to live by the Girl Scout Law.


Girl Scout Law
I will do my best to be
honest and fair,
friendly and helpful,
considerate and caring,
courageous and strong, and
responsible for what I say and do,
and to
respect myself and others,
respect authority,
use resources wisely,
make the world a better place, and
be a sister to every Girl Scout.

----

The one on one bickering is a function of how few people are checking the board. I know I'm stating the obvious, but if only a few people are here, well, only a few people are talking to each other.

----

So, two women are telling you calling a movement something with "boy" in the title would feel exclusionary to them. You are arguing that it's not sexist to do so. Can you see how this is dismissive of our lived experience?

If the GOAL is to revive the Republican party, and one of the main reasons the party is failing is that women are leaving in droves, listening to women when they tell you that something feels unwelcoming to them would be a great place to start, regardless of if you think it shouldn't feel that way.

Of course it's not just women the Republican party is losing, it's also racial minorities. The boy scouts discriminated against Black American boys until a lawsuit in 1974 made them stop, and still are overwhelmingly white. So the term is unlikely to hit a lot of the right nostalgia buttons for Black or Latino men, either. (When I went looking for demographic info I found a lot of papers by the BSA talking about how Latino families were a hard sell because they didn't have a tradition of scouting. They are currently doing outreach to the community, since it's the fastest growing group in the US, but don't seem to be having much success.)

Shall we talk about how it's likely to resonate with Log Cabin Republicans?

So, as I said before, the problem with the idea is it's only going to appeal to the people who are already most likely to vote Republican, not ANY of the demographics they need to win back to be a viable party again. This isn't me being hostile to conservatives. This is me providing constructive criticism. The whole point of discussing things with people not like you is to hear the viewpoints you would miss, isn't it?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
First, I agree that discussion is vital and helpful.

Second, I would like to note that I have enjoyed our interactions, despite miscommunications.

D: I am not particularly in favor of the name "Boy Scout Conservative"...my first suggestion was "Non-asshatery conservative"...my point was that Mr. Squicky did not seem set on the name, but was trying to say (to me at least, where are you Sqicky?) that what conservatives really need is some effing morals...like this one morality based group...

That everyone here agrees that Republicans are basically in need of an overhaul should make the following discussion much easier.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
P.S. I am a registered Libertarian (Man I wish Garry Johnson was sane)
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
I'm sorry, but is it really necessary for so many threads on this board to degenerate into this one-on-one bickering? It seems to happen quite a lot lately. There are a *ton* of interestingly titled threads here, and there is a wearisome number of them that end exactly this way. Personally, I would rather the board was less active, then to get my hopes up for interesting discussion when I see a thread bumped, only to come here and find this.

Sometimes I ask myself if people here still reads Orson Scott Card or science fiction or dark fantasy at all because it seems that these tastes are too mundane and intellectually not acceptable. :-)

I have been a member of Michael Moorcock forum for years and there we have a vast range of people: gay, straight, leftists, right wingers, geeks, literates, metal heads, funky players, liberal activists, atheists and non atheists, vegans and meat eaters, programmers, freedom fighters and space buccaneers but It is really impossible to remember more than one or two flamed discussions like those I have seen here since last April. Might be something age related, because we are mostly over 40s. [/qb][/QUOTE]
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
[ROFL]

I don't know how old Stone Wolf is, but everyone else in the conversation is over 40.

Did you read PanaceaSanans's recent attempt at revival threads? Many of the diverse people who used to be active here explained why they're not anymore in them.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I'm 30 as it happens.

Again, can we go back to making fun of Donald Trump?

Thanks.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
To start us off, apparently someone dressed as Donald Duck has been running around Trump rallies and Trump Tower.

http://time.com/4545543/hillary-clinton-donald-duck-trump-veritas/
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm 36
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Man uses pick axe to remove Trump's name from the Hollywood walk of fame:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/10/26/video-shows-donald-trumps-hollywood-walk-of-fame-star-destroyed/?client=ms-and roid-verizon
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
That's pretty terrible. I don't support vandalism.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
It's a vid...the guy doing it hands out the brass letters to the crowd as souvenirs...and apologizing to the crowd for the flying stone chips...

According to this aricle:

quote:
...the man said he planned to auction off the star and give the money to women who have accused the Republican presidential nominee and former “Apprentice” host sexual assault.


[ October 26, 2016, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I'm 32!
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
It's a vid...the guy doing it hands out the brass letters to the crowd as souvenirs...and apologizing to the crowd for the flying stone chips...

According to this aricle:

quote:
...the man said he planned to auction off the star and give the money to women who have accused the Republican presidential nominee and former “Apprentice” host sexual assault.

... And the linked article says they are prosecuting the guy for vandalism. Can I walk into a museum, break something I don't like and sell the pieces for my favorite group?

No.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm sure he will wear his jail time as a badge of pride.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Weird Al prez debate song
 
Posted by Nomolos (Member # 7703) on :
 
I have been entertained by the banter in this thread.

That is all.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Are you not entertained?!? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Tomorrow is Halloween, as I write this. How fitting a time to contemplate our political Trick or Treaters--a Clown and a Witch. I have heard that the Secret Service refers to the helicopter that Hillary flies in as "Broomstick One." Hillary is notorious for her uncivil treatment of the people who risk their lives to protect her.

We are forced to choose between Benito Mussolini and Lucretia Borgia. But flawed as he is, at least Trump has not been accused of multiple murders over the past several decades. (Just Google the word, "Arkancide" to see what I am talking about.)

Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom says the Clintons are actually an organized crime family. Not a political machine, like the Daley Machine, or Tammany Hall--but something more like Al Capone's Mafia, or like a drug cartel, that thrives on subverting justice by suborning government officials.

[ October 31, 2016, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
But flawed as he is, at least Trump has not been accused of multiple murders over the past several decades.
If it would make you feel better, I'll accuse him of some murders right now.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
He's going to trial for raping a minor. That's a little more serious than any of the "accusations" against Clinton that are basically speculation and spite.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Shall we elect the anti christ or a proven liar?

Congratulations, Madame President. First gentleman Bill...
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Clinton isn't any worse a liar than the average politician.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
"Speculation and spite" involving people who were about to blow the whistle on Clinton corruption, who suddenly turned up dead, sometimes with two bullet holes in the back of their head, yet were ruled by the Clinton-beholden medical examiner as "suicides." The list is very long, and continues up to Vincent Foster in D.C.

Not to defend Trump, whom I regard as only less worse than Hillary, but what real evidence is there that Trump raped a minor? How much money have the Clintonistas given to the women who made public accusations against Trump? Hillary was a fan of Saul Alinsky, who advocated that liberals should deliberately use floods of falsehoods, so the public will think there must be something to it. They did this against Newt Gingrich years ago, and against Gov. Sarah Palin. Even though every such false charge was eventually proven false--months later--the public impression was left that there must have been something to the charges. The sad thing is that liberals seem to believe the end justifies the means, so anything to them is justified, even if it involves using deliberate falsehoods, and hacking voting machines to change votes, and paying people to go to Trump rallies and start fights, so Hillary can point to the violence Trump incites. All these things are proven facts, and have been openly bragged about on video by people connected to the Hillary campaign.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm out.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
All these things are proven facts...
Well, no.
 
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
We are forced to choose between Benito Mussolini and Lucretia Borgia. But flawed as he is, at least Trump has not been accused of multiple murders over the past several decades. (Just Google the word, "Arkancide" to see what I am talking about.)

Considering that Lucretia Borgia most likely didn't kill anyone despite her reputation and was so good at administering the city of Ferrara in her husband's absence that she became known as "the Good Duchess", I think that's a surprisingly apt comparison.

Lucretia Borgia any day, thanks.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I was just thinking that all this election season needed as a capstone was ron lambert to come over and tell us how much trump is winning, and if he loses, it can't possibly be because Hillary won, its because the clintons sole the election with fraud, and the whole system is rigged.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I don't know if the whole system is rigged--were that true, there would be no hope--but some of it is rigged. This is nothing new for Democrats. John Kennedy would not have won except for the graveyard vote in Daley's Chicago.

You know, Hillary Clinton is the most despised political candidate ever, except perhaps for Donald Trump. If only Republicans had chosen Ted Cruz for their nominee, he would be leading now in the polls by 50 points. I hope the lesson is not lost on Republicans.

The real Halloween this year comes on November 8. And no matter who wins--the Clown or the Witch--we will probably get the "Trick."

Risuena, I will take the established history of Lucretia Borgia and her Aminita mushrooms over the usual, predictable speculation of the typical iconoclastic notable-historian wannabees. You can have her. There are some people who claim that the Clintons did a good job administering Arkansas, if you ignore Whitewater and all the dead bodies.

[ October 31, 2016, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Ron, what exactly do you think Hillary Clinton was supposed to have done regarding Whitewater? What crime was she supposed to have committed?
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

I don't know if the whole system is rigged--were that true, there would be no hope--but some of it is rigged. This is nothing new for Democrats. John Kennedy would not have won except for the graveyard vote in Daley's Chicago.

Whether or not previous elections were rigged is not relevant to the current election; especially considering in the 1960's prior to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act not even all Americans could participate in American democracy; but what evidence do you have that Democrats are currently rigging the election?

Right now the overwhelming evidence is that it is Republicans who are trying to rig the election by suppressing the vote of Democrats on a demographics basis. Reducing early voting hours, making voting more restricting, reducing access to voting machines, adding a de facto poll tax by insisting on voter ID, the list goes on, *and* this is outright admitted to by GOP politicians and strategists.

What evidence is there Ron that the election is being rigged by Democrats, what are they doing?

quote:

You know, Hillary Clinton is the most despised political candidate ever, except perhaps for Donald Trump. If only Republicans had chosen Ted Cruz for their nominee, he would be leading now in the polls by 50 points. I hope the lesson is not lost on Republicans.

First of all the largest electoral landslides in US history we're by +12 points, so to lead by +50 would be virtually unprecedented; it is downright delusional to suggest that a solid majority of Democrats, around 70-80% would abandon the (D) nominee that they actually approve of by around 80% for the Republican nominee that stands for everything the Democratic party does not.

At Clinton's worse this election she still led by around +1 to +2 points, and was winning all of the likely Democratic states and only needed one of the many swing states that were leaning (D).

quote:

I hope the lesson is not lost on Republicans.

The irony is that the lesson they need to learn isn't to double down on conservatism.


quote:

and all the dead bodies.

And so Ron literally believes that Hillary personally killed people, what. a. surprise.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
No, Elison, she obviously had people killed. Like Al Capone. The Clintons have a regular organization of "consultants" whom they call on for their dirty tricks--up to and including wetwork. Let me refer you again to what was said by former assistant FBI director, James Kallstrom, that the Clintons are actually an organized crime family. Not a political machine, like the Daley Machine, or Tammany Hall--but something more like Al Capone's Mafia, or like a drug cartel, that thrives on subverting justice by suborning government officials. Link: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303458-former-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family

KMBoots, this is pretty old history. You should do your own research. You might find it most interesting and illuminating to Google the word, "Arkancide."

[ October 31, 2016, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Here is a link to an account of Texas voters noticing that their votes were being changed from Trump to Hillary: http://conservativetribune.com/switched-from-trump-to-hillary/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=janbrewer&utm_content=2016-10-30&utm_campaign=manualpost

(Texas is one of the many states that allows early voting.)

The voter was probably using one of the voting machines that had been supplied by George Soros.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
KMBoots, this is pretty old history. You should do your own research. You might find it most interesting and illuminating to Google the word, "Arkancide."

Oh, I remember Whitewater. I just wanted to see what you know and if you would actually answer a straightforward question.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Here is a link to an account of Texas voters noticing that their votes were being changed from Trump to Hillary: http://conservativetribune.com/switched-from-trump-to-hillary/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=janbrewer&utm_content=2016-10-30&utm_campaign=manualpost

(Texas is one of the many states that allows early voting.)

The voter was probably using one of the voting machines that had been supplied by George Soros.

Nope. Soros does not own the company in question. Also, the Smartmatic voting machines are not even going to be used in this year's election.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
No, Elison, she obviously had people killed. Like Al Capone. The Clintons have a regular organization of "consultants" whom they call on for their dirty tricks--up to and including wetwork. Let me refer you again to what was said by former assistant FBI director, James Kallstrom, that the Clintons are actually an organized crime family. Not a political machine, like the Daley Machine, or Tammany Hall--but something more like Al Capone's Mafia, or like a drug cartel, that thrives on subverting justice by suborning government officials. Link: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303458-former-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family

So about the same standard and level of proof as Reptilian/illuminati conspiracy theorists.

I don't care about the personal opinion of one federal agent; I care about how there's so little evidence, that you take that as PROOF!!! PROOF!!!! That there must be a vast "left wing conspiracy" to hide her crimes that you just know did?

Basically there's no proof, and you have no evidence, just links to different conspiracy peddling websites or sensationalism who trade back and forth the same theories like baseball cards.

quote:


Here is a link to an account of Texas voters noticing that their votes were being changed from Trump to Hillary: http://conservativetribune.com/switched-from-trump-to-hillary/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=janbrewer&utm_content=2016-10-30&utm_campaign=manualpost

(Texas is one of the many states that allows early voting.)

The voter was probably using one of the voting machines that had been supplied by George Soros.

So a few isolated incidents of voting machines recording the wrong vote is evidence that this is a plot by Democrats? Speculation is the same as fact to you?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
A few isolated incidents of people saying that their voting machine recorded the wrong vote.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
You know, Hillary Clinton is the most despised political candidate ever, except perhaps for Donald Trump. If only Republicans had chosen Ted Cruz for their nominee, he would be leading now in the polls by 50 points. I hope the lesson is not lost on Republicans.

the idea that Ted Cruz would be leading hillary clinton by "50 points" is so absolutely and incredibly impossible that this quote is a perfect example of the kind of political assertions that are so wrong that only ron lambert really makes them.

in a battle against ted cruz i think this election would be much tighter than the hillary blowout it currently is. cruz leading "by 50 points" would never, ever have happened.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
i mean i guess you could say that when you're saying "I hope the lesson is not lost on Republicans" it's technically worthwhile advice as long as the lesson is "Do not listen to people like Ron, who essentially make up facts and have no idea what's actually happening in an election because they're serially deluded"

this, individually, is a good lesson to learn. p.s. hillary's gonna win thanks
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Ron seems to concede that Hillary is going to win, which is almost shocking.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I hope not. Ron is always wrong.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
No, Elison, I think that Trump may actually have a chance to win--especially if his supporters are more enthusiastic than Hillary's supporters, and turn out to vote in greater numbers. I am just saying it would not be close at all if Republicans had put up a better candidate--which Ted Cruz certainly was. Because Hillary is such an extraordinarily bad candidate. Maybe 50% is an exaggeration--but then again, most Democrats are pretty disgusted with Hillary, too. Sanders' supporters have real reason to want to punish Hillary. We could yet see a "Trexit" vote--the American equivalent to the British "Brexit" vote, which also was a rebellion by the populace against the mainstream establishment.

And Elison, I think the real concern is how many facts and CLEAR indications of truth you are choosing to ignore, for no good reason.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

No, Elison, I think that Trump may actually have a chance to win--especially if his supporters are more enthusiastic than Hillary's supporters, and turn out to vote in greater numbers.

And maybe Trump supporters, thinking the election is rigged, all decide to stay home? We can play these what if games all day but we do have strong empirical evidence, in the form of LV voting screens among polling aggregates, such as 538; that Trump is pretty much doomed to lose; there is no map that plausibly lets Trump win that is at all likely.

quote:

which Ted Cruz certainly was

Ted Cruz might technically be a better candidate than Trump, and the election might be closer; but he would lack the same sort of base that Trump has and would be more likely to sink his campaign over the lesser of Trump level gaffes.

quote:

most Democrats are pretty disgusted with Hillary, too.

This is plainly not true. Hillary among Democrats has high approval, 74% among Democrats according even to Fox News. Remember, Hillary won the primary, not Bernie Sanders; and something like 71% of Bernie Sanders supporters when polled had said they supported Hillary.


quote:

We could yet see a "Trexit" vote--the American equivalent to the British "Brexit" vote, which also was a rebellion by the populace against the mainstream establishment.

Minorities will save America from itself.

quote:

And Elison, I think the real concern is how many facts and CLEAR indications of truth you are choosing to ignore, for no good reason.

Your posting history is sufficient reason, such as when you refused to acknowledge my posts refuting your views about how "close" German victory in WWII was; I wrote two very long posts rebutting your posts and you not only did not respond to them, but you continued to pretend you did when you didn't, you're a liar.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Easy w/ the name calling there dude.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Maybe 50% is an exaggeration

It is more than an exaggeration. It is a statement which is so statistically impossible and without historical parallel that the only way you could have made the assertion is by literally having no idea what you are talking about and throwing out a number that you completely invented.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I feel like Stone_Wolf channeling conspiracy theories here, but have y'all seen the Trump-as-Putin's puppet stuff?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
One key difference between "Brexit" and "Trexit," of course, being the fact that Brexit was a legal vote, and there is no legal mechanism for a Trexit vote, short of a Constitutional amendment changing the fundamental nature of America's political structure.

As someone who is usually a pretty serious political junkie, I'm just so incredibly over this election.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Not me!

More more more more.

Okay, I am a little bit done, but man, what crazy times we live in.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
At least Ron admits that either Hillary or Trump are - to be short - mean. He does not delude himself into thinking that - like many of you - that Hillary is angelical.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Zlog, if you can point to anyone you think believes Clinton is 'angelical' or even just highly virtuous that'd be great. Or even better, remarks to that effect.

I'll save you some time and just let you know that you very likely can't do either of those things.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Zlog, if you can point to anyone you think believes Clinton is 'angelical' or even just highly virtuous that'd be great. Or even better, remarks to that effect.

I'll save you some time and just let you know that you very likely can't do either of those things.

This is at least very good to know thus I am really happy to be wrong.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Who here did you think believed Clinton to be angelical or even highly virtuous, then?
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
I don't know but I recall to have read a comment here about someone that supports her thus leading me to my misinterpretation, but, I tend to think if one votes for her, one supports her, regardless of how evil she might be and that is what worries me.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
Btw, in USA voting is not mandatory, isn't it? Here in Brazil it is. But I have not had a candidate for years and I don't think I will find anyone who deserves my vote.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
I don't know but I recall to have read a comment here about someone that supports her thus leading me to my misinterpretation, but, I tend to think if one votes for her, one supports her, regardless of how evil she might be and that is what worries me.

Do you believe Clinton to be evil? If so, why? As for a vote meaning support, it can also mean 'not wanting the other person to win'
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
You do realize, I hope, that almost everyone - including politicians - fall somewhere between "angelic" and "evil".
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Ron, it would probably be best if you reconsidered speaking for Sanders supporters for whom you're even more unqualified than usual. Seriously, politically and religiously you're almost a Martian to Sanders supporters.

Also the fact that you can seriously suggest a 50pt win for anyone, and then walk it back to 'maybe exaggeration'...well if you hadn't already disqualified yourself from being taken seriously so, so many times that would work towards disqualifying you. And as for FBI officials? Don't hold up their credentials as reason to credit them unless you want to answer for all of the FBI officials who think he's a nut.

Of course I know you so I know you'll casually discredit all of the other cops who say that the Clinton crime family idea is bullshit. But find *one* cop who doesn't and it's all hey forms FBI assc director says! It's kind of exactly like your approach to science.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
To be fair, Clinton is winning by over fifty points among certain groups. [Party]
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
I don't know but I recall to have read a comment here about someone that supports her thus leading me to my misinterpretation, but, I tend to think if one votes for her, one supports her, regardless of how evil she might be and that is what worries me.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not anymore evil or corrupt than the average politician/public servant. Hillary certainly has her share of raisins but there are plenty of reasons to support her in spite of that that doesn't have to rely on "Because Trump is worse".

-She will appoint a more liberal justice to replace Scalia. Do you feel like this is bad, or evil? Do you see this as something that Democrats wouldn't support and if so why?

-She will not invade Iran. She was pivotal for the Iran deal negotiations; it is highly likely that the Republicans would gladly start more wars to enrich their associated companies.

-Her platform is the most progressive in the history of the Democratic party in over 30 years and the closest we will see to a return to the principles of the New Deal; do you see this as evil?

-She in general, will be a continuation of the Obama presidency, meaning that when facing an obstructionist congress will use executive orders to improve things at a federal level at least for federal employees; such as Obama working to fight discrimination of LBGT people and minorities for federal contractors. Do you also see this as evil?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, you claim that "Hillary Rodham Clinton is not anymore [sic] evil or corrupt than the average politician/public servant."

The following might disabuse you of this overly generous assessment:
quote:
According to NYPD sources, files found on Weiner’s newly found laptop which he shared with his wife Huma Abedin, show evidence of a political pedophile ring operating within Washington, involving members of Congress as well as numerous top Clinton aides and insiders.

According to reports, a folder on Weiner’s laptop named “life insurance” contains explicit evidence that both Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin helped run and cover-up a Washington pedophile sex ring.

Truepundit.com reports:

NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:

Money laundering
Child exploitation
Sex crimes with minors (children)
Perjury
Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
Obstruction of justice
Other felony crimes

NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department’s highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices.

Link: http://investmentwatchblog.com/nypd-hillary-clinton-child-sex-scandal-about-to-break/
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The source on that one is Kent Dunn, Ron, who's pretty much famous for being persistently, laughably wrong.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
So now Clinton isn't just bad. Nor is she just worse than Trump. Nor is she just entirely corrupt, politically and financially (to run through the list of criticisms down into hates). She's not even just someone who will smear reputations of her husband's accusers that she knows to be true. Nor is she even 'just' a murderer or employer of assassins, essentially the same thing.

Now she's not just a child pornographer but a child sex trafficker. Short of being an outright warlord who massacres parents and then sells their children into the child sex trade there is almost nothing worse that Hilary Clinton could be than a child sex trafficker and a murderer.

Ron, most of us know you hate her with as much fervency as you will at other times bizarrely profess your certainty in the existence of a Christian god. I mean that ship sailed a long time ago. I'm almost as certain though I won't speak for anyone else that you hate anyone who's not a far right Christian conservative who desires to turn-yes, turn-our secular (at least in design and often in implementation) government into a theocracy.

But Hilary Clinton, child sex trafficker? Ron. Gather up the tattered shreds of your dignity and your good sense and get a grip on yourself. Try to imagine for a moment that there existed any sort of serious evidence that this was true. What in the goddamn hell possible reason would Comey have to be silent about it? Or any of the many other FBI employees who would have seen it by now? If it's released Clinton is destroyed and Trump is grateful forever.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
I am not sure that Hillary or Obama are the decent altruistic persons ( albeit tempted by a bleak side which seems to be good that politicians have :-) )you all assume they are ( including OSC who claims that he does not like Obama's government but thinks Obama seems to be a decent man ) and I have not read any good rebuttal that Hillary is not a corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist ( btw I have read the whole Wikipedia entry for her and it looks like that she is not one ).

Historically Democrats are also worse in how they conduct economical matters with Brazil.

I have got "politician-phobia", as if I see any of "them" I try to run away.

I have two good friends in US who have lost a lot during Obama's government and they were not rich or part of any kind of elite.

Anyway, as I have remarked before, it does not matter how evil I think Hillary might be, she is a "less worse" alternative than having a clown and proved "insane demagogue" like Trump solely because Hillary government will be a continuation of Obama's government. Not matter how bad it can be.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
What could president Obama have done to prevent that from happening to your two friends, zlog? Or better what did he do to cause it?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

Short of being an outright warlord who massacres parents and then sells their children into the child sex trade there is almost nothing worse that Hilary Clinton could be than a child sex trafficker and a murderer.


She could be a gay child sex trafficker and murderer.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The source on that one is Kent Dunn, Ron, who's pretty much famous for being persistently, laughably wrong.

Wasn't Kent Dunn the one that confirmed at one point that for sure the military was cancelling the 2016 elections
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

Short of being an outright warlord who massacres parents and then sells their children into the child sex trade there is almost nothing worse that Hilary Clinton could be than a child sex trafficker and a murderer.


She could be a gay child sex trafficker and murderer.
[ROFL]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I utterly HATE misinformation
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
I am not sure that Hillary or Obama are the decent altruistic persons ( albeit tempted by a bleak side which seems to be good that politicians have :-) )you all assume they are ( including OSC who claims that he does not like Obama's government but thinks Obama seems to be a decent man ) and I have not read any good rebuttal that Hillary is not a corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist ( btw I have read the whole Wikipedia entry for her and it looks like that she is not one ).

Historically Democrats are also worse in how they conduct economical matters with Brazil.

I have got "politician-phobia", as if I see any of "them" I try to run away.

I have two good friends in US who have lost a lot during Obama's government and they were not rich or part of any kind of elite.

Anyway, as I have remarked before, it does not matter how evil I think Hillary might be, she is a "less worse" alternative than having a clown and proved "insane demagogue" like Trump solely because Hillary government will be a continuation of Obama's government. Not matter how bad it can be.

But again though, look at the issues and policies I talked about. If the United States under a Democratic President has not been ideal for Brazil I'm sorry about that, but it doesn't answer my questions to you.

You said:

quote:

but, I tend to think if one votes for her, one supports her, regardless of how evil she might be and that is what worries me.

What makes her evil? What leads you to believe this? Can you please offer specifics? Because I gave you specifics, a number of policies she is likely to work towards, and even get passed, if the Democrats win a majority of the Senate. Are any of those evil?

If they are not evil, then isn't it clearly the case that there can be plenty of reasons why someone would support Hillary Clinton?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
...regardless of how evil she might be...
Seems speculative to me
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
I am not sure that Hillary or Obama are the decent altruistic persons ( albeit tempted by a bleak side which seems to be good that politicians have :-) )you all assume they are ( including OSC who claims that he does not like Obama's government but thinks Obama seems to be a decent man ) and I have not read any good rebuttal that Hillary is not a corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist ( btw I have read the whole Wikipedia entry for her and it looks like that she is not one ).

Historically Democrats are also worse in how they conduct economical matters with Brazil.

I have got "politician-phobia", as if I see any of "them" I try to run away.

I have two good friends in US who have lost a lot during Obama's government and they were not rich or part of any kind of elite.

Anyway, as I have remarked before, it does not matter how evil I think Hillary might be, she is a "less worse" alternative than having a clown and proved "insane demagogue" like Trump solely because Hillary government will be a continuation of Obama's government. Not matter how bad it can be.

But again though, look at the issues and policies I talked about. If the United States under a Democratic President has not been ideal for Brazil I'm sorry about that, but it doesn't answer my questions to you.

You said:

quote:

but, I tend to think if one votes for her, one supports her, regardless of how evil she might be and that is what worries me.

What makes her evil? What leads you to believe this? Can you please offer specifics? Because I gave you specifics, a number of policies she is likely to work towards, and even get passed, if the Democrats win a majority of the Senate. Are any of those evil?

If they are not evil, then isn't it clearly the case that there can be plenty of reasons why someone would support Hillary Clinton?

As I said before:
"I have not read any good rebuttal that Hillary is not a corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist ( btw I have read the whole Wikipedia entry for her and it looks like that she is not one )."

By Democrats I meant the party, or do you think the Republican party stands against democracy?

I have read the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho who is regardless of his right winged opinions, a scholar and none of the arguments he has posed against Hillary or Obama seems to be debunked, specially in regard to her lack of honesty and moral and perhaps "cultural Marxism". Truth to be told, I was skeptical about this at first, but I am seeing so many decent people - like everybody here - just using the same arguments that radical supporters of Brazilian party PT ( which I used to be in my 20s) use that I am really scared.

I am sorry to say that what Hillary proposes seems exactly what it is written in "presidential candidates handbook" in the chapter "Demagogy is your tool". Trump has just more experience with this chapter and uses more often.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
"histrionic moody person"

this ranks up there with "shrill" in terms of language which reads as an obvious dogwhistle

what does one mean by "histrionic moody person" i wonder
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

I have not read any good rebuttal that Hillary is not a corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist ( btw I have read the whole Wikipedia entry for her and it looks like that she is not one ).

It's not obvious what do you mean by this, are you saying that Hillary is a "corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist" and that you haven't seen any good arguments that refute this?

I mean, obviously Hillary is not a socialist. I got banned from /r/LateStageCapitalism for defending Hillary using the same arguments I am using here. Hillary does not have any ideological beliefs that labour should seize the means of production or hold a Marxist view of history; does not consider property and capital to be theft. Socialists would hold the view that there is no ethical consumption in a capitalist system, while Hillary is clearly some variant of progressive neoliberal that holds that you can be both a capitalist and yet ethical.

Like there are real definitions as to what constitutes a socialist and that is not Hillary.

Like why do you ask this if you said that upon reading her wikipedia page you've also said you believe she is in fact not "histronically moody etc" based on that? Are you suggesting that none of her supporters have given such arguments? I feel like the point of this line of questioning by me is to establish a factual, rational, and reasonable basis as to why someone can whole heartedly support Hillary without being "evil" or what have you.

quote:

By Democrats I meant the party, or do you think the Republican party stands against democracy?

WhyNotBoth.[gGjJ]if

The "Democrats" refers to the membership and leadership of "The Democratic Party" which is their official name; i.e just as how the Grand Old Party's official name is "The Republican Party"; the names inherently mean nothing in a modern context.

Though it's self evidence that by nominating and standing behind Donald Trump a out fascist that the Republicans, who also support eroding democratic rights of minorities do not support democracy in a meaningful sense.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
hillary's policies are far too hawkish for the comfort of most lefties, and are also generally considered to be too generally invested in neoliberal practices

if you were to talk with americans who actually are part of socialist party organizations — like, you know, actual american socialists — and you tried to claim to them, practically ANY of them, that hillary was 'a socialist who works with a policy of cultural Marxism'

they would start laughing at you

and they would just keep laughing

eventually they would fall to the ground holding their sides, their bodies racked with pain from the oxygen deprivation

you might actually just kill them

this is very cruel
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
For some reason my fingers spazzed so double posting:


quote:

specially in regard to her lack of honesty

There is no evidence that she is inherently less honest than the average politician. There's been literally over 25 years of fear mongering regarding Rodham because she refused to stay in the kitchen and bake cookies (which she also did, and won the WH cooking contest iirc).

quote:

"cultural Marxism"

Supporting the rights of gays, lesbians, trans people, minorities, ecofeminism, 3rd wave feminism, and the science of climate change tends to be called "Cultural Marxism" but most conservatives who claim to be "scholars" as a sort of dog whistle talking point thing. It's meaningless noise that means anything to anyone.

"Cultural Marxism" is right wing garbage.

quote:

like everybody here - just using the same arguments that radical supporters of Brazilian party PT ( which I used to be in my 20s) use that I am really scared.

Lol, like who? And what arguments? Be specific.

Can you name a single poster, and a single argument, quote the post, can you do that?

quote:

I am sorry to say that what Hillary proposes seems exactly what it is written in "presidential candidates handbook" in the chapter "Demagogy is your tool".

Hold the phone, what do you mean by this? What specifically does she propose, is "demagoguery"? Understand that the United States is a Representative Democracy and politicians run on a platform to appeal to a majority of their constituents, ergo, they must typically, normally, offer the voters policies, proposals, and plans for changes that satisfies their needs, concerns and desires. This is normal, what you're probably alluding to is populism, such as when the Brothers Gracchi/rival Senators offered the poor and lower classes of Rome "stuff" that may have not been entirely in the interest of Rome but won them elections.

Can you name specific proposals in which would qualify as populism that harms the interests of the United States? Or are you going to continue being vague?

Of the proposals I outlined albeit in generalities, which ones are "populist"?

1. Appointing liberals to the Supreme Court, or at least de facto more liberal moderate justices such as Merrick Garland that still serve to vastly shift the Court to the left. Hillary can be expected over two terms to replace Ginsberg, push through Garland, and possibly replace Kennedy. This is a fairly standard Republican-Democrat game of football regarding the Supreme Court; what makes this populist?

2. Advancing laws that seek action regarding climate change, what is populist where? Are you aware that the US Navy, has classified climate change as a core US Security interest due to the likelyhood of increased wars and instability from climate change?

How many more examples do I need to list?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:

I have read the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho who is regardless of his right winged opinions, a scholar and none of the arguments he has posed against Hillary or Obama seems to be debunked, specially in regard to her lack of honesty and moral and perhaps "cultural Marxism".

oh my god, look at this guy, look at him

quote:
Carvalho rejects Karl Popper's open society for "not recognizing any transcendent values and by leaving everything at the mercy of economic conveniences – conveniences that are something alleged even to justify the very demolition of the free market and its replacement by the welfare state, based upon taxation and debt."[26]

In some works, Olavo de Carvalho attempts a criticism of mechanicism,[27] strongly criticizing Isaac Newton,[28] Galileo[29] and René Descartes.[30] He explains how Newton's First Law contradicts itself when lacking a traditional metaphysics.[31] According to him, "Galileo and Newton's science belittled the observation of natural phenomena in favour of formulating mathematical models with no relation to empirical reality".[32]

Carvalho opposes astronomers and scientists in general who refuse to consider astrology as an object of scientific study, seeing in this refusal a partisan attitude. "There is a structural correspondence between the position of the stars in the sky at the time of a person's birth and his character. This can be verified". He also criticizes heliocentrism, claiming there are no definitive scientific proof of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

Another target of his criticism is Darwinism. Carvalho wrote: "All he [Charles Darwin] did was to venture a new explanation for that theory [evolutionism] — and his explanation was wrong. No one else, among the self-proclaimed Darwin's disciples, believes in 'natural selection'. The theory in vogue, the so-called neo-Darwinism, proclaims that, instead of a selection mysteriously oriented toward the improvement of the species, all that happened were random changes. [...] 'intelligent design' is not only the final touch of the Darwinist theory, but also its fundamental premise, discreetly spread throughout the whole argumentative edifice of The Origin of Species". He goes on saying that "Darwinism is genocidal by itself, from its very roots. It did not have to be deformed by disloyal disciples to become something it was not".[33]

Carvalho accused Georg Cantor of confusing "numbers with their mere symbols" in his works about transfinite numbers, and calls his math a "play on words"[34] and a "false logic".[35]

https://media.giphy.com/media/zjQrmdlR9ZCM/giphy.gif
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I went and found my OP:

quote:

-She will not invade Iran.

Do you feel, zlogdanbr, that invading Iran would be better for world security and stability? To tear up the nuclear agreement? That not invading Iran is the "populist" result?

quote:

-She in general, will be a continuation of the Obama presidency, meaning that when facing an obstructionist congress will use executive orders to improve things at a federal level at least for federal employees; such as Obama working to fight discrimination of LBGT people and minorities for federal contractors. Do you also see this as evil?

Minorities and LGBTQ people are well, by definition, minorities. Is this populism?

quote:

-Her platform is the most progressive in the history of the Democratic party in over 30 years and the closest we will see to a return to the principles of the New Deal; do you see this as evil?

This is perhaps the only bit, while vague, that can be qualified as populist; I split off the policy wonkery of investing in renewables, solar energy plants, recycling, etc in my previous post today; so lets look at stuff like more affordable College, increased minimum wage, expanding healthcare, closing tax loopholes on the wealthy, racial justice by increasing police accountability, fixing US infrastructure, Her website has more.

Basically, can you pick out and list which ones, which parts of her platform, and why, are populist in a way that is not in the interest of the United States?

Don't rely on hacks, read her website, and point them out for me.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Oh look its Sam too, this almost feels unfair.

Basically Zlog, the whole appeal behind Hillary Clinton is that she isn't just handwaving and promising the moon with vague promises. Hillary's appeal is that she is a policy wonk, that she LOVES to go into details and argue specific policy. Trump doesn't have specifics, her doesn't have positions, he flip flops and changes his message. Hillary has been consistent regarding her platform and positions.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
This article explains why people like her. I was 100% going to vote for her (because, um duh), but this actually makes me happy to do it and see her win.

http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality

If we can get this Hillary as president, and obstructionists back off, I think the country will do well.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
With the exception of possibly legally questionable executive orders, the office of the president is mostly a body that uses influence more than actual power.

More of a figure head unless they use their power to put troops on foreign soil.

Admittedly choosing a supreme court justice IS a big deal.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
"histrionic moody person"

this ranks up there with "shrill" in terms of language which reads as an obvious dogwhistle

what does one mean by "histrionic moody person" i wonder

I read an story that old Bill asked Spielberg to create a shorty film to illustrate Hillary's carrier as a politician, and story says she got mad and broke the DVD into pieces. Obviously not a true story, but that is what I meant for,e.g someone psychologically unstable and prone to convey different reactions depending on her current psychological status most of times not quite politely.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
[QB] I went and found my OP:

quote:

-She will not invade Iran.

Do you feel, zlogdanbr, that invading Iran would be better for world security and stability? To tear up the nuclear agreement? That not invading Iran is the "populist" result?

Not really because as I said despite what I think about Hillary I think Trump would be a major problem. Truth to be told, If I lived in US I would probably vote for evil Hillary. Of course I would have to bear it in my conscience forever.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:

I have read the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho who is regardless of his right winged opinions, a scholar and none of the arguments he has posed against Hillary or Obama seems to be debunked, specially in regard to her lack of honesty and moral and perhaps "cultural Marxism".

oh my god, look at this guy, look at him

quote:
Carvalho rejects Karl Popper's open society for "not recognizing any transcendent values and by leaving everything at the mercy of economic conveniences – conveniences that are something alleged even to justify the very demolition of the free market and its replacement by the welfare state, based upon taxation and debt."[26]

In some works, Olavo de Carvalho attempts a criticism of mechanicism,[27] strongly criticizing Isaac Newton,[28] Galileo[29] and René Descartes.[30] He explains how Newton's First Law contradicts itself when lacking a traditional metaphysics.[31] According to him, "Galileo and Newton's science belittled the observation of natural phenomena in favour of formulating mathematical models with no relation to empirical reality".[32]

Carvalho opposes astronomers and scientists in general who refuse to consider astrology as an object of scientific study, seeing in this refusal a partisan attitude. "There is a structural correspondence between the position of the stars in the sky at the time of a person's birth and his character. This can be verified". He also criticizes heliocentrism, claiming there are no definitive scientific proof of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

Another target of his criticism is Darwinism. Carvalho wrote: "All he [Charles Darwin] did was to venture a new explanation for that theory [evolutionism] — and his explanation was wrong. No one else, among the self-proclaimed Darwin's disciples, believes in 'natural selection'. The theory in vogue, the so-called neo-Darwinism, proclaims that, instead of a selection mysteriously oriented toward the improvement of the species, all that happened were random changes. [...] 'intelligent design' is not only the final touch of the Darwinist theory, but also its fundamental premise, discreetly spread throughout the whole argumentative edifice of The Origin of Species". He goes on saying that "Darwinism is genocidal by itself, from its very roots. It did not have to be deformed by disloyal disciples to become something it was not".[33]

Carvalho accused Georg Cantor of confusing "numbers with their mere symbols" in his works about transfinite numbers, and calls his math a "play on words"[34] and a "false logic".[35]

https://media.giphy.com/media/zjQrmdlR9ZCM/giphy.gif

He also disqualifies the already proved and tested general relativity theory which gets me mad. Anyway, Professor Olavo has some serious issues to understand Physical sciences.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
Oh look its Sam too, this almost feels unfair.

Basically Zlog, the whole appeal behind Hillary Clinton is that she isn't just handwaving and promising the moon with vague promises. Hillary's appeal is that she is a policy wonk, that she LOVES to go into details and argue specific policy. Trump doesn't have specifics, her doesn't have positions, he flip flops and changes his message. Hillary has been consistent regarding her platform and positions.

Thank God I won't have to choose. I am also heavily- nearly praying- hoping that you are all right about Hillary and I am wrong. This is not irony you know.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
For some reason my fingers spazzed so double posting:

"Cultural Marxism" is right wing garbage.


I apologize for that. I was quite angry thus delusional when I decided to mention "Cultural Marxism", which I don't think it has been practiced by the lefties to disrupt the current status quo. While I am not against any of the liberal ideas you have cited in your posts I have a real hard time to deal with themes supported by "political correctness extremists".
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
"histrionic moody person"

this ranks up there with "shrill" in terms of language which reads as an obvious dogwhistle

what does one mean by "histrionic moody person" i wonder

I read an story that old Bill asked Spielberg to create a shorty film to illustrate Hillary's carrier as a politician, and story says she got mad and broke the DVD into pieces. Obviously not a true story, but that is what I meant for,e.g someone psychologically unstable and prone to convey different reactions depending on her current psychological status most of times not quite politely.
Please be aware: I do not know what the term "dogwhistle" mean - this is not sarcasm or irony. But I suppose it means something that is semantically neutral and just attempts to add a bold erudite connotation that actually does not mean anything consistent.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
This article explains why people like her. I was 100% going to vote for her (because, um duh), but this actually makes me happy to do it and see her win.

http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality

If we can get this Hillary as president, and obstructionists back off, I think the country will do well.

Back in 2014 we were in the same dilemma here in Brazil: Dilma or Aecio Neves. I have decided not to vote but the way I am seeing things in US, it seems evil Hillary is a much better option than Trump specially for the sake of the continuity of human race.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
A dogwhistle can be heard by dogs, but not humans. So you blow it when you want to get dogs' attention without humans hearing you.

Calling a woman "shrill" or 'histrionic" or "moody" is not saying "She's unacceptable because she's a woman." But all the other people who also think she's unacceptable because she's a woman will hear what you're saying anyway. You're saying she's unacceptable because she's a woman.

I mean, you just used a story that you admit is obviously untrue to illustrate what you think about her personality. Because there aren't any true ones that show what you want to believe.

Hillary Clinton is a policy wonk who cares deeply about improving lives and serving the country. She is smart, she is kind, and she is stable. I'm sure she's lost her temper more than once in her life, I don't know anyone who hasn't. If that was a disqualifying thing for a president, we wouldn't ever have one. She also is overly guarded and secretive, at least partially because she's had people trying to prove she's a criminal for the last 30 years. She's certainly not perfect. But the kind of bullshit you're spewing here is sexism, pure and simple.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

it seems evil Hillary

Zlog, name one thing. I've asked you multiple times now, to actually substantiate your position. What makes Hillary in your view evil?

You've now at least twice since I last responded to you, used the terms "Evil Hillary" in a post to describe her, but you have not yet actually posted a single substantiated argument as to what makes her evil.

I fully expect you, if you are going to continue this claim, to actually go on and substantiate what actions she has done, what she has actually done, or said, that makes her evil.

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you have not yet done so despite the multiple times that I've asked this of you.

For the record, in English here is the first definition from Google:

quote:

profoundly immoral and malevolent.

I get that you may not be American and thus may not be fully well versed in Hillary's record or history; but rationally, reasonably, you should know for a FACT that you should NEVER claim that someone is "evil" without some strong evidence to back up your position.

If you cannot show us even one bit of evidence, then I think you should be able to reach the conclusion that Hillary is simply not an evil person; nor is there that evidence cleverly "hidden" there somewhere like Ron seems to think.

Because several times now I've posted her positions and you've responded each time some variation of "Oh well that's not bad at all and I agree with that." In which case, what is your problem?

Right now we are in an environment of discussing this with you in good faith, don't let us down.

For example:

quote:

Obviously not a true story, but that is what I meant for,e.g someone psychologically unstable and prone to convey different reactions depending on her current psychological status most of times not quite politely.

As ElJay mentions you just used an obviously untrue story, why do you suppose that Hillary acts like this at any point? When has it happened? In a way that is clearly "unstable" and not just someone losing their temper due to extraordinary circumstances?

quote:

While I am not against any of the liberal ideas you have cited in your posts I have a real hard time to deal with themes supported by "political correctness extremists".

While I am raising/quirking my eyebrows at what is a pretty obvious red flag for me since "political correctness extremists" just makes me laugh my ass off because I'm pretty sure such people don't really exist as the people usually afraid of such people think; but what the heck are you talking about?

Are any of these people on these forums right now?
Can you name a specific example in any posts in this thread or that you have seen that qualify as "PC Extremism"?

If neither is true, then why talk about it? If you can't think of an example regarding Hillary that qualifies, then why talk about it?

It's like the idiots who rant and wave about Anita Sarkeesian or unironically use the term "SJW" and then try to pass it off as talking about some slacktivist from facebook and not an actual feminist with real grounding in the issues or theory; Don't be one of those people. Don't seek them out, don't bring them up; if you say you're not against treating people with basic human dignity then don't bring up the "extremists", only deal with the views and arguments in front of you now.

Deal with facts. I'm not arguing with your recollection of what someone else said, I only want to discuss either yours views or the views that you can quote or copy and paste that someone made on these forums or quote directly from a reputable source regarding Hillary Clinton.

Not stuff that is likely largely made up.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Part of it I think might be language difficulties. Zlog walked back the evil characterizations but then used them again just now, I think perhaps in passing. Part of it also is, to be candid zlog, an apparent willingness to listen to pretty damn nutty pundits and philosophers who are pretty wacky in their own disciplines-such as hey we can't be sure the world is round!-much less fields entirely removed from their 'expertise' and experience.

Part of it also seems to be a willingness to transpose your own frustrations with Brazilian politics into an American context. While I can understand the impulse, if I were to talk about American politicians and then make pronouncements about Brazilian politics wouldn't that be a bit strange?

But part of it, I think, is sexism, subconscious or not. Let me add a little bit of context for this election: between Trump and Clinton, is it really going to be *Hilary* who gets tagged with 'moody and histrionic'? To do so suggests you're paying much closer attention for emotional 'faults' in her while he gets a pass on them. Trump has become known for throwing honest to God temper tantrums in social media alone. Many times now. But a criticism of *Clinton* is supposed to be that she's 'moody'?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
She may be moody but Trump is out of his gods damned mind
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
But she isn't moody. "Moody" is a trap word that's only used to describe women, to make them seem inherently less capable than men. She's also described as ice-cold, robotic, etc, which is the exact opposite of moody. It's blatant sexism.
 
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
 
Well, calling her "evil" after some time was not quite really seriously intended and I kept using the term "in passing" as Rakeesh has noticed. I was partially quoting myself in mockery.

I wholeheartedly regret it now. Even though I initially meant it, I have changed my mind as I thought I had expressed myself. @Elison R. Salazar, this is my final statement if it suffices to calm you down:

Hillary is not malignant or evil at the end you have certainly convinced me.As I remarked before, I am really hoping that :

- Hillary wins
- Hillary is not as bad as politician as you claim.

If it was not clear to any of you please my apologizes. I realize I was not taking this discussion as seriously as you all are, but I usually behave like that when it comes to talk about politicians. I am quite disappointed with them despite their genders. It is not sexism at all. It is sad realization that I think I cannot see any politician who can represent me as a citizen me and a sheer distrust in the human race.

I frankly have joined this forum because I read science fiction and fantasy and it sort of makes me sad to see how little we talk about it here.

In regard to "political correctness extremists", well, it is really difficult to discuss the topic without getting flamed responses, but I promise to create a thread to discuss it.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
But she isn't moody. "Moody" is a trap word that's only used to describe women, to make them seem inherently less capable than men. She's also described as ice-cold, robotic, etc, which is the exact opposite of moody. It's blatant sexism.

yeah and zlog, this is EXACTLY why i zeroed in on the 'histrionic moody person' language

it is language used by people who are using coded language to say that "she is a woman" and "as a woman, she is temperamentally unsuited to the office of the presidency, because women are emotional and moody and have mood swings and PMS"

American politicians on the right do the same to 'code' their messages.

When a GOP member talks about how they're going to be curbing 'welfare queens' and 'thugs' they mean "we don't like black people either"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I've been called "moody" plenty of times...and no one is mistaking me for a chick...

[Angst]

Oh gods I would make a brutally ugly gal.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Interesting that you bring up 'political correctness extremists' when it's pointed out that several of your criticisms of a woman make no sense from any context but sexism. You're not being asked to be politically correct. You're being asked to not be sexist.

It doesn't matter if you say you don't care about politicians genders. They way you are talking about them is strongly influenced by cultural gender bias. We all have it. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Yours is probably of a different flavor than mine, since we grew up in different countries. But the fact that you've called Clinton moody but not Trump, as Rakeesh said, shows it plain as day.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

Well, calling her "evil" after some time was not quite really seriously intended and I kept using the term "in passing" as Rakeesh has noticed. I was partially quoting myself in mockery.

It's good if you truly didn't mean it that way, I think we can mea culpa this as a miscommunication due to the language barrier and perhaps you've haven't lurked long on this forum.

We treat political discussions and most discussions fairly seriously here because well, the majority of us who are active regulars and long time veterans came from a time when we considered this forum to be Orson Scott Card's living room; many of us know each other in real life or have met or interacted offline in some way. Tom bought me a book once.

Because of this, there's a certain level of courtesy and respect given I feel where when we are discussing stuff in good faith we come to some sort of agreement, even if its just to disagree, fairly quickly; but it makes it when some of us don't treat it respectfully, are not arguing in good faith or are just reprehensible, stand out very quickly.

So in general I suggest that you should always strive to mean what you say, and say what you mean, and think things over carefully.

I am not angry, nor do I need to be calmed.

The point though, it is very good that you enjoy science fiction, it's good to be here, god knows we need new blood. But when you wander into politics you should take careful stock of what the prevailing winds are, of who the most confident and knowledgeable active posters are (Their names rhyme with Ram, prom, lamb, and unleash), and understand the level of scrutiny your posts will fall under if you don't think it through carefully, standards are high.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I think we are all just overly sensitive to "evil Hillary" because every time Donald Trump tweets about her, he calls her "crooked Hillary" along with "goofy Elizabeth Warren" and other epithets.

There's a concept in psychology called "projecting" where you accuse the other person of doing things you have done as a way of hiding. It's apparently very common among cheating spouses (or so I've learned from reddit relationships). A faithful spouse's often writes in about a newfound paranoia from their partner about infidelity and sure enough, they're being cheated on. It's crazy.

Trump projects. A lot. He often states that Hillary lies, that she's the most crooked candidate ever (he uses hyperbole often too). However, there's an independent agency called Politifact that checks candidate statements and rates them, so things that are true from "a certain point of view" are marked as somewhere in between.

Here's an example from the primaries, so you will get a sample of not just Trump and Clinton.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/15/presidential-scorecards-so-far-march-15-2016/

It turns out that Clinton is pretty honest compared to her cohort: only 1% of her statements received the worst rating, and the lowest percentage of false or worse. Whether that is better than Bernie with no truly bad statements, but more in the false categories is up to you. Trump, however, has 19% in the worst category ALONE ("pants on fire" harkens back to the playground chant "liar liar pants on fire").

So really, the best defense to Trump is "I know you are but what am I" (another schoolyard chant-- the next line is "I hope you die in Junior High"), but it's really hard to pull off as an adult.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
When they go down, we go up!

That can't be right...google says:


When they go low, we get high...er, go Hi!...no, go high.

Heh...but seriously,

Trump is really REALLY awful
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
He is uniquely unqualified.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
While this is true, I opine that "American politician X is evil" is not a particularly extraordinary claim. Sadly, it's entirely pedestrian.

Anyway, to name one thing, intervention in Libya. You'd think someone who lived through the whole Iraq thing - sniping from the sidelines! - would have learned that intervening in a Middle Eastern country is unlikely to improve things. But no, we've got all these ships and missiles, what are they for if we can't use them?
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
King of Men, I have great respect for your reason, wit, and intellect. I do not think that it is reasonable to claim that any public figure is outright "evil" without at least some demonstrable evidence of this, mainly again to use the definition of "Profoundly immoral and malicious", which is what the situation is/was with Zlog.

I think that while we can agree that most politicians are probably of some degree of scummy in order to do their jobs and get reelected which requires soliciting funds, to be evil requires a certain degree of effort and investment.

Rumsfeld and Kissinger are about as close as I am willing to go in terms of that claim, and I say this as someone who respects Kissinger, thinks he did some excellent work in opening China and has his autographed memoirs.

Rumsfeld comes to mind from what I've seen of clips from the The Unknown Known versus what I've seen of McNamara's retrospective from The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. McNamara strikes me as someone who was very distraught trying to square aware what he did or was a part of, as someone who wants to be a good person and was worried how he might be judged in the next life.

Rumsfeld was scum through and through the entire interview.

But to claim Hillary is evil I do not think meets any reasonable standard.

If supporting intervention in Libya is your best evidence then I can safely claim she is not evil as an objective truth.

Because first as you put it, "who lived through Iraq" is wrong. Because the Libya intervention and OIF were apples and oranges. the US intervention in Libya involved minimal boots on the ground if any, and was the US mainly supporting a NATO military operation through airstrikes and cruise missiles.

Operation Iraqi Freedom involved something of a quarter of a million US soldiers and years of US occupation of a foreign nation fighting a drawn out insurgency. None of that is the case with Libya.

Ultimately though the United States is our Hegemon, and has a moral and ethical imperative as a member of the United Nations Security Council, as a Victor of the Second World War to contain, limit, and erode acts of aggression and crimes against peace and humanity by other nations using whatever means.

Qaddafi had went too far and as a result invited US and UN intervention upon his own head and I think generally that the Left has gone literally insane after what happened with Iraq and now views any US intervention abroad as being "Another Iraq", I'm baffled.

Iraq happened because the Bush Administration was determined from Day 1 to invade the country; whether it is because of right wing neocon think tank echo chambers acting in a circle jerk since 1991 or simply unfettered imperialist capitalism not enough time has gone yet for us to know, but Iraq was a determined premeditated effort from even before Bush got into office and consequently bent the truth, lied, and pulled every political machination in the book to justify the entry into Iraq. You had Cheney going undercover to leak fabricated sources to a newspaper and then consequently using that same newspaper to say he was right.

Virtually none of this is the case with Libya and Syria. Both are ad hoc circumstances of the US reacting to changing world events and meeting their just due obligations to upholding the status quo and current world order.

The situation in Libya is still not good but the United States has more or less stepped away from it after intervention and letting the local factions sort themselves out while giving support to fight ISIS, this is arguably still better than what happened in Iraq.

Not intervening in Libya I don't think was ever a valid option for the United States, so I don't see how this makes Hillary evil without also you claiming I'm also evil for supporting it, in which case then "evil" as you currently define it is meaningless and we're back in everyone is a "last man" territory.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I would say the Libyans were better off under Qadafi then they are now with murderous religious maniacs on the rampage.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
... You'd think someone who lived through the whole Iraq thing - sniping from the sidelines!

Indeed, if only we could have been so lucky that she only sniped from the sidelines. She "in fact, she facilitated and enabled [George W Bush] to make a decision that has been strategically damaging to the United States of America"

quote:
Senator Clinton, I think, equates experience with longevity in Washington. I don't think the American people do and I don't think that if you look at the judgments that we've made over the last several years, that that's the accurate measure.

On the most important foreign policy decision that we face in a generation, whether or not to go into Iraq, I was very clear as to why we should not, that it would fan the flames of anti-American sentiment, that it would distract us from Afghanistan, that it would cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and would not make us more safe, and I do not believe it has made us more safe.
...
Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out. The question is: Who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch?
And the fact is that Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on day one, but, in fact, she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue.


 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
Mucus.... who are you quoting in your post?
 
Posted by Elcheeko75 (Member # 13292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
I would say the Libyans were better off under Qadafi then they are now with murderous religious maniacs on the rampage.

Someone would also be better off getting hit by a Volkswagen than by a cement truck but that doesn't mean you don't try and push them out of the street. Since the discussion was about whether or not HRC could be reasonably described as evil, intent would, I think be a large factor. Even if you buy the ridiculous claim that Obama and Hillary birthed ISIS, you can't possibly claim that it was on purpose.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
I would say the Libyans were better off under Qadafi then they are now with murderous religious maniacs on the rampage.

Again no, the 1991 Iraq War turned out alright, as do numerous other armed US/UN interventions around the world; that the Libyan situation is still quite short of the intent doesn't change the fact that the decision to go in was made under a rational entirely consistent with the US upholding it's legitimate duties as a Great Power and UNSC member and peacekeeper.

Things didn't go as intended because France and the UK didn't commit to ongoing operations, Clinton isn't to blame for that; the US can't let "Vietnam Syndrome" infect its ability to make the right decision in other peace keeping circumstances.

Rose coloured tinted glasses in her assessment? Perhaps, but is the decision evil? In no honest way is it evil.

Additionally ISIS will eventually be defeated, and in the long term it'll be a hard bloody struggle but there's still a chance things eventually stabilize for the Libyans.

Additionally the ISIS situation may lead finally to a de jure independent kurdistan, lots of good things all around.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Voted...(among others) yes on 64, legalize recreational marijuana.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I voted. Got to the polling place (a local Antiochan Catholic Church, where we always vote) about 9:50 A.M., and got out 50 minutes later. Lines were long, all the way down a long hall for one of the precincts (there were two precincts at this polling place), and the large parking lot was 90% full. I thought by getting there midmorning the lines would be shorter. But I guess a lot of the 8 A.M. crowd was still finishing up. There was one lady a few people ahead of me who was ordered to turn her sweat shirt inside out. (Fortunately she had a regular shirt underneath. Perhaps she planned for this.) I didn't see the front, but apparently it advertised one of the candidates. As I approached the door, there was a sign on the sidewalk that said "100 feet. No campaigning beyond this point." Any way, it looks like voter turnout in this northern Detroit suburb is very heavy. Sure is different from the primary election last summer, when there was no line at all.

I sighed and voted for Trump. Sure wish it were Ted Cruz as the Republican nominee. Voted Republican all the way down the partisan ballot. Most of them were incumbents that I already was familiar with. I did some research on the non-partisan candidates ahead of time, so I was able to make a fairly educated choice, even though they were mostly unfamiliar to me. (Like trustees for Oakland Community College--vote for 3 out of a list of about 8. I did not vote for the teenager. I wonder how many will vote for him, not even knowing a teenager is running for college board of trustees.)

Now we can only wait and see who wins this Trick or Treat election--the scary clown or the wicked witch. Whoever wins, we all get the trick. But the worse thing that could possibly happen is for lawless serial felon Hillary Clinton to win, and place the White House under the control of her crime family.

We had one ballot proposal--to approve a millage to finance a three-county wide transit system that includes Detroit. I voted in favor. Lots of people lack their own transportation, and presently it can take many of them over an hour to get to work, if buses even run that way.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
Hi everyone. Long time.

Hope everyone is having a good election day.

I haven't voted yet, though I'm leaning towards Daryl Castle.

He has some positions I don't agree with, but he's the only one on the ballot here in Nevada that I feel comfortable supporting.

There's five ballot measures here in Nevada.

#1 is a gun control measure that forces private sales to be done at a FFL holder's brick and mortar facility. Not sure if it will pass or not

#2 is recreational marijuana. I expect it to pass

#3 would effectively end the monopoly Nevada Power in the state. I expect it to pass, and it should.

#4 is to remove the sales tax on medical devices such as oxygen tanks. I think it will pass.

#5 is a gasoline surcharge to "improve Nevada roads." It would potentially double the fuel taxes here in the state over the next 10 years. I don't really see the need for this, since there is currently enough money for all projects being worked on. There's no deficit.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
But the worse thing that could possibly happen is for lawless serial felon Hillary Clinton to win, and place the White House under the control of her crime family.

Again, this isn't true; Hillary has never been convicted of a crime and by definition cannot be a felon.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Whoa. Michigan is tightening but Trump still leads. And Wisconsin still looks likely to go to Trump. Prediction market odds are 10:1 for a Trump win.

Sometimes surprising things happen.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Now it's 20:1. Increasingly certain that Trump has won.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
The GOP is having a good night in the Senate races as well, taking Indiana and Wisconsin (which were rated toss-up and lean Dem, respectively). They haven't called NH, but Ayotte is leading, and Roy Blunt seems to be headed toward victory in Missouri. 538 currently expects 51-52 GOP senators.

The governors races are also leaning GOP, with Republicans winning/leading in NH, VT, NC, MO, and IN. Four of those currently have Democratic governors.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
do you remember how i jumped up and down and celebrated that trump won the primary because it essentially surrendered the white house and the supreme court to the democratic party

i am happy to report that the state of the election is "still super over"


 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
On a global perspective, I guess the global climate and the Chinese democracy movement look like they'll be down for the count.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
do you remember how i jumped up and down and celebrated that trump won the primary because it essentially surrendered the white house and the supreme court to the democratic party

i am happy to report that the state of the election is "still super over"


Look at how owned i am, this is like a new level of self ownage
 
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
 
WTAF 'Murica?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
President Trump?

[Eek!] [Angst] [Wall Bash] [Cry]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
We underestimated the desire of people who didn't get what they wanted, either in the primaries or in life, to burn it all down. We thought that enough of us would choose reason and compassion. We were wrong.
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
We underestimated the desire of people who didn't get what they wanted, either in the primaries or in life, to burn it all down. We thought that enough of us would choose reason and compassion. We were wrong.

Yes.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
"Choose your leaders
with wisdom and forethought.

To be led by a coward
is to be controlled
by all that the coward fears.

To be led by a fool
is to be led
by the opportunists
who control the fool.

To be led by a thief
is to offer up
your most precious treasures
to be stolen.

To be led by a liar
is to ask
to be lied to.

To be led by a tyrant
is to sell yourself
and those you love
into slavery."

(Octavia Butler, Parable of the Talents)
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
At least in CA we can get goooood and high about it.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
One person here is eating a s**t-ton of crow right now. The schadenfreude is almost overwhelming...
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Don't worry, capax. Even after samprimary gets a seriously upset stomach you'll still be a hack:)
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
I've missed you Rakeesh. [Smile]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Hilary won the popular vote by about a quarter million votes.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Let's not turn on each other people.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
At least in CA we can get goooood and high about it.

Same here in Vegas.

As the HR manager I had to tell all of my employees today that while weed will be legal come January 1, they are still not allowed to spoke it before or during work hours.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Stone_Wolf_, not all states are 100% in, at least last time I checked this morning. So the popular vote totals have not been finalized yet. You may now want to argue that our national elections should be determined by popular vote. This is an old argument. The Electoral College was designed to prevent some states from being too greatly more influential than other states. There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to that. But these are the rules we play by. The time to change the rules involving the Electoral College would be before the next election, not in time to affect the one just passed.

Kmboots, it has been my observation--oft confirmed especially in this forum--that liberal Democrats are the faction that have the least respect for objective facts and sound reasoning. Once your ego gets involved, your mind closes, and you immediately resort to insult and derision. You think your false accusations are factual, and thereafter presume to quote yourselves and try to rewrite history, claiming past victories that you did not win. Your present reaction shows you still haven't learned your lesson. Reality is not determined by majority vote. Vox Populi, VEX Dei.

By the way, the best way to show compassion is to enact policies that actually work to produce the greatest good that we can all afford. And what really works in social engineering is to recognize that the Ten Commandments really do have supreme moral weight. Anyone who leans even a little toward socialism needs to see that taking money from one group to give to another group is theft, which is contrary to the eighth commandment; and the basic popular appeal of socialism is covetousness, which is contrary to the tenth commandment. God calls these things sin for good reasons.

Rather than trying to falsely vilify the people who voted differently from the way you wanted them to, you might consider the observation of a commentator on FNC that one of the keys to Hillary's loss was the fact that African-Americans did not turn out in as great numbers as they did in previous elections. In the case of Detroit, the amount is something like 100,000. Which means that people in this demographic, that Hillary and the Democrats were counting on, were not enthusiastic, and perhaps are beginning to question whether the Democratic Party really has the best interests of African-Americans at heart. Along with this is the fact that Trump got twice the percentage of African-Americans to vote for him as Mitt Romney got to vote for him in 2012. Still single-digits percentage-wise, but double the previous amount.

[ November 09, 2016, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
. And what really works in social engineering is to recognize that the Ten Commandments really do have supreme moral weight.

Someone should tell Donald Trump there's one in there about lying, one about adultery, and another about coveting a neighbor's wife.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Thou shalt not grabith lady folk by their genitalia as a greeting.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Which means that people in this demographic, that Hillary and the Democrats were counting on, were not enthusiastic...
Or, of course, their votes were successfully suppressed, given that the states where turnout was unusually low were all states targeted by voter suppression efforts.

By the way, Ron, congrats on not being completely wrong for the second time in your history here at Hatrack.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
One person here is eating a s**t-ton of crow right now. The schadenfreude is almost overwhelming...

haha, yes! question: did you support Trump's election and do you think he will be a good president who positively influences the future of the country?
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
One person here is eating a s**t-ton of crow right now. The schadenfreude is almost overwhelming...

haha, yes! question: did you support Trump's election and do you think he will be a good president who positively influences the future of the country?
I didn't support Clinton or Trump. Do I think he will positively influence the future of the country? He has the potential to do so, yes, but the influence will be minimal and dependent upon a number of factors. Hopefully Trump has sense enough to surround himself with people who know how to run a country because he's lacking a good number of qualities a president must have to succeed. I think we'll see his rhetoric become less virulent but we should still expect WTF?-inducing comments and gaffes weekly during his term as president.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Sounds about right.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Or, of course, their votes were successfully suppressed, given that the states where turnout was unusually low were all states targeted by voter suppression efforts.

Tom, who do you think it was who suppressed voter turnout in Detroit--where virtually everyone is African-American, and where the government of the city has been controlled by Democrats for over 50 years? You liberal Democrat types should really stop believing your own propaganda, certainly where it makes no rational sense.

It has been reported that about 100,000 fewer African-Americans in Detroit voted this time than voted in the last presidential election. That is pretty significant, when you realize that the total margin of victory in Michigan for Trump was only 13,225. Really, do you think hordes of Tea Partiers were recruited to hang out at polling places in Detroit trying to intimidate people, enough to discourage 100,000 people from voting?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Someone should tell Donald Trump there's one in there about lying, one about adultery, and another about coveting a neighbor's wife.

It is venturing on really dangerous ground for anyone supporting the Clintonistas to criticize Trump for lying. No one in the history of human government has ever lied more about absolutely everything than Hillary Clinton. (Violation of the ninth commandment.) As for the seventh and tenth commandments, I would think Bill Clinton is so vulnerable to those charges, that supporters of Hillary would hesitate to bring them up in regard to Trump.

Look, I really have no burden to defend Trump, since I said from the beginning he is uncouth, and Ted Cruz is the one that Republicans should have nominated. But being a successful businessman, Trump has learned how to play within the intricacies of the law, domestically and internationally. Hillary, on the other hand, has made a career out of ignoring the law, skating from felony to felony, seemingly ever above the law, because there are people who always cover for her--like the medical examiner in Arkansas who ruled that several people who were going to blow the whistle on Clinton crooked dealings and suddenly wound up dead, were "suicides," even when in some cases they had two bullet holes in the back of the head. A special term has been coined for this: "Arkancide." Just Google Arkancide to review the large body of evidence about this. Many believe that Vince Foster (at one time Hillary's lover, and then threatened to go public with damaging information) was also Arkancided in Washington, D.C. This in turn is one of the reasons why a former assistant director of the FBI, James Kallstrom, charged that the Clintons are in fact a "crime family" comparable to Al Capone's mafia. Link: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303458-former-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family

[ November 09, 2016, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
No one in the history of human government has ever lied more about absolutely everything than Hillary Clinton.
This is pretty provably false.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I am tired.

I am tired of fighting what seems like a constant losing battle. I'm tired of false hope and shattered dreams. I'm tired of making two steps forward and three steps back progress. I'm tired of being told there is more that unites us than divides us. I'm tired of being told we need to come together when we disagree on everything. I'm tired of the rules constantly being changed. I'm tired of racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. I'm tired of the lies. I'm tired of the willful disbelief in the truth. I'm tired of the demonization of knowledge. I'm tired of the media treating politics like reality TV. I'm tired of the dumbing down of America. I'm tired of votes not counting, not mattering, or being actively suppressed.

I loved politics once, mostly because I loved policy. Like Hillary, I was always more entertained by the wonkish aspects of it, the details and plans and experimenting with solutions. I liked the ideas in their many varied forms and investigating the pros and cons of each. I liked the complex problems. But politics isn't about that anymore. It's about bloodsport and winning. It's about conquest and defeat. I don't love that, and as a result can no longer involve myself in or enjoy politics the way I used to.

Most of us here probably do not buy into the concept of American Exceptionalism as often espoused by Republicans. I do think we are an exceptional nation in that we're unlike most every other nation, but not exceptionally superior. But any fantasy we held about our own superiority, be it intellectual or moral, should be gone now. America failed this week. It failed as a concept. The American experiment is over. It won't end all at once. You don't stop an aircraft carrier on a dime and you don't stop America the day after any election either. But regardless of what Trump does during his term, the fact that he was elected at all means something in America is fundamentally broken. It's the electoral college, or the media, or our education system, or Congress, or the Supreme Court, or the Constitution itself or it's very people. I don't know what combination of them make up the alchemy of failure, but the result is the same.

The only way to fix this country is for either the collective will of government and our institutions to be harnessed to recommit to what got us here in the first place, or for the populace to rise up en masse and demand reform. Given what happened this week, I just don't see how either of these things are possible.

So America will collapse, slowly, over time, and take a good chunk of the stable world order with it. It will devolve into a lesser nation and abandon all the principles espoused at its birth. And eventually, maybe after a long time but certainly at some point, it will die.

I'm not sad that Hillary lost because I wanted Hillary herself to win. I'm sad for everything I wrote about. And because I'm tired and I just can't fight anymore, and I can't muster the will to believe that my fighting even matters. More than the country breaking, something inside me broke on Tuesday night and I'm not sure how it gets fixed. It's one of those fundamental breaking points where a universal truth is destroyed, like a child's belief in their parents as heroes; this isn't the country I thought it was, and I think it's beyond saving. And on a lesser note I realize I don't matter from an electoral perspective. My efforts to learn and better myself, to try to change the minds of those around me and influence them for the better, they're just a waste of time. It's difficult to accept that one's personal efforts over the course of years were all for nothing.

So I'm sad, and tired, and broken. And I'm just not sure I care any more. Maybe that will change and I'll start to care again. Maybe I'll be less sad when enough time has gone by. But this one isn't going away. It's a sea change. And it will be, unlike our union, eternal.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I understand your anguish, or at least empathize with it from my own elephant on my chest...but it's not that bad man...while this turn of events is tragic and shocking, your efforts were not For nothing! Four years go by in a blink, and impeachment is not off the table.

Also remember that the pendulum will swing back, and it's not how many times you get knocked down, but rather how many times you get back up that is your measure.

[Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Four years go by in a blink, and impeachment is not off the table.

Except that the Republicans control all three branches of government, one of which includes lifetime appointments, and can rewrite legislative rules. Also, if they vote for impeachment, it'll only be to put someone like Pence in charge of government -- which I'm not entirely unconvinced isn't part of their original plan.
 
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
We underestimated the desire of people who didn't get what they wanted, either in the primaries or in life, to burn it all down. We thought that enough of us would choose reason and compassion. We were wrong.

I've heard this sentiment expressed in a few different places, particularly by Democrats (I want to say liberals, but it's used so often as a pejorative by conservatives that I hardly like to use it anymore, even when it's more accurate). I guess...I'm hoping that I can share my experience, briefly, with this election, as a conservative who didn't vote for Trump. Maybe I won't say anything that you all haven't already considered or expected, but I'd like to say it anyway because I want you all to understand why, even though I hated the idea of Trump as president, I also didn't vote for Clinton.

Going into this, we knew the Yellow Dog Republican/bigot/angry-and-uneducated trifecta was going to vote for Trump. Clinton was never going to get their votes, obviously. But I'm not sure the Democrats understood just how many of us Christian right-wingers were open to an option other than Trump. I belong to a large organization in Texas (a cooperative home school) that's made up of Christians from a wide variety of denominations, but we, as a group, watched in horror as Trump made his way through the primaries. I barely know any practicing Christians who support Trump; the conservatives I know who like him are either not Christian or nominal Christians.

But we believed, because most people believed, that the Democrats were going to take the Oval Office and the Senate. Just like Tom seems upset with the idea of an all-Republican government (and I don't blame him) we conservatives saw a likely path to a very Democrat-heavy Washington. In my mind, the best case scenario (of the ones given, which all sucked) would have been Clinton in the White House and a fresher Republican Senate, which might have led to more deadlock (maybe not) but wouldn't have equaled a runaway for Democrats. I was hoping for some temperance in the selection of Justices.

When it came time to vote, I stood there in the booth for several long minutes trying to decide what to do. But I believed Democrats would win the Senate and, in the end, I couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger on Clinton. Not because she's Democrat or a woman or a liar, but because I didn't feel connected to her or her party at all and I couldn't stand the idea of no check to that power.

But I don't think it had to go that way. I believe that some of us, the younger ones or the ones who lean a bit libertarian, the red-violets, could have been swayed to vote Democrat in this particular election, because we disliked Trump so much. But I'm not sure the Democrats really understood the potential there, maybe because we don't stir up a fuss or make ourselves known. I'm not a political scientist, so I can't say what I think the DNC should have done in this case. I don't know what policies or politicking could have been implemented in order to grab the disgusted conservative crowd. I only know that I didn't witness any real attempts, at least not here in the "red" south. I think many of us felt lumped in with Trump and alienated.

Anyway, I'm not trying to place blame anywhere, and I'm not trying to open myself up to attack. I'm just sharing my feelings because I'm frustrated, too, and I'm in the camp that I think many Democrats believe they can't relate to.
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
That helps, PSI. I was trying to get my head around more mainstream Republicans being okay with Trump winning, and I had forgotten that the choice faced in the booth probably looked different at the time.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I understand your anguish, or at least empathize with it from my own elephant on my chest...but it's not that bad man...while this turn of events is tragic and shocking, your efforts were not For nothing! Four years go by in a blink, and impeachment is not off the table.

Also remember that the pendulum will swing back, and it's not how many times you get knocked down, but rather how many times you get back up that is your measure.

[Smile]

First, I'd repeat everything Tom said above.

But I'd also reiterate my point that you're thinking too tactically. This isn't about today, tomorrow, or even just Trump's term in office. It's about what must be true in order for him to get elected. I don't care if the pendulum swings back. It'll swing back and the GOP will just stymie progress for four more years now that they know it works. And then when nothing happens the people will usher Republicans back into power.

The only thing I see worth doing is that I'm going to start donating to non-profits that might actually make a difference. I'm donating to the ACLU today and will be on the look out for other organizations that have that level of impact they do in defending against Trump's most likely excesses.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Lyrhawn, I am just going to share what is - with better and worse moments - what is helping me.

After a very bad night on Tuesday, I remembered that I am a folk singer dammit. I have the tools for this! I am equipped to emotionally cope with terrible, oppressive government. And to help others do that. I was reminded that, whatever the government, we all have gifts to make things better, to deal with grief, to inspire, to comfort, to protect. Actors, poets, teachers, lawyers, people with time and energy or resources to help. Even if it is just to be kind, we are not powerless. Another friend found comfort in paying it backward at Starbucks because there was grace in people being kind no matter who they voted for. A friend who is a yoga instructor helped herself and helped others to just breathe and to find calm.

I went to hear a friend's band last night and they opened with a defiant version of "Oooh Child" that was an anthem and went on to play a set that had exhausted dispirited middle-aged folks dancing like crazy people. Both musicians and audience were reminded that there will still be joy and fun and we can still have that.

Finally, an Irish American friend of mine posted this and I am sharing it with his permission.
quote:

I received a promotion this morning. I went from your everyday civic voter to a human rights activist. My voice will be collected with others to make a deafening reminder that we insist to be held safely in this nations embrace, all of us.
To all my friends who are afraid because their lives as US immigrants, as LGBT persons, as non christians, as women, as people of this nation, you will always find safety and comfort in my house.
To my friends who are not yet, and hopefully never, on the outside looking in, if that time should come when you are no longer welcome in the community you thought would save you, you too are welcome and safe in my house. I will carry a banner, raise a flag and march determined to keep you all safe. I will not let my fear stop me.
Love and peace to you all.

I am really lucky to live in a blue state and I know it must be much harder to be surrounded by people who supported Trump but I found that these things have helped me and maybe they will help you.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I posted some imflammatory things and was kinda hoping for a slapfight. What's up with sake?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
officially as of today the republicans control all three branches of government via a minority of the popular vote for each

underneath how horrifying it is that's actually kind of impressive
 
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
 
Sake's transferring servers. Should be up before too long.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
I posted some imflammatory things and was kinda hoping for a slapfight. What's up with sake?

I responded to your post. Did you see it before it crashed?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Kate - It didn't help, but I was warmed by the effort. Thanks. [Smile]

I'm not feeling any better. Republican efforts at "uniting" the country are only further infuriating me. Every slight and anti-democratic act of the last 8 years is coming back to roost with every comment they make.

And the more I think about it, the more I think I shouldn't get over this. Getting over things is what lets us give people a pass time and time again for poor behavior.

I think the only way to make sure we stay engaged to keep the country safe is to maintain perpetual and unforgiving outrage and anger.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
well i mean that's what you're going to get either way
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
I posted some imflammatory things and was kinda hoping for a slapfight. What's up with sake?

PUI again?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Uh-oh, sounds like we lost Lyr to the dark side
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
I posted some imflammatory things and was kinda hoping for a slapfight. What's up with sake?

PUI again?
Nah, not this time. I got toasted on election night though.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I'm just a bit salty cause this refusal to go beyond "racism sexism xenophobia" in explaining and understanding the support Trump had just won us President Trump and a Republican Congress.

And instead of acknowledging that, all anyone wants to decry is unfairness and isms. No one wants to look at what we did wrong.

The way this campaign was run and the electorate interpreted got our side bent over a table. I'm not going to participate in an echo chamber and help set up the next crushing defeat.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
That's a whole lot of exagerration. What was actually happening, on Sake at least, was an acknowledgement of what role those things played-and a rejection of your suggestions that they played no role at all, or a small one if memory serves. Can't look at it now though.

The Clinton campaign could have done a number of things better. *Possibly* a Sanders campaign would have been victorious. But I simply don't think it's true that the loss was due only to errors, by a significant stretch.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Also, Heisenberg, you were already 'not participating in the echo chamber'. It's not some new resolution you've made. Finally, when even Trump and his staff were surprised at their victory, I think it's safe to say things are more complicated than 'she screwed up.'
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I said it played a small one. And I stand by that. Our definitions may skew, though.

Trump won because people are angry about how the economy and their lives are going. Their antiestablishment anger overrode their distaste for the various and sundry ism quotes that flowed like a spring from Trump's mouth. I personally don't feel that them prioritizing their disgust with the establishment over their distaste for stuff like that makes them, themselves, racist etc.

Remember, before the Trumpers ever rejected the establishment Democrat, they rejected sixteen establishment Republicans. The writing for this was on the wall.

I was saying since June that, hey, just painting everyone on the other side as bigoted dumbasses and walking around with unbearable smugness realllly didn't work out too well for Britain, maybe we should rethink our strategy. And me and others saying that were given pats on the head.

We - the general liberal we, not just Sake - are still doing it. Instead of acknowledging a bad campaign and a bad candidate, and what we can do to win over those voters next time, everyone's howling about how the country is neck deep in isms.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I never said it was a new resolution. I'm just explaining why I'm going to continue to speak as I have been doing.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
One could also say, with at least as much accuracy, that Republicans turned out to vote in non-extraordinary numbers and Democratic turnout was depressed. So no, it's not just about unrest with the status quo. And you can blame the loss on how awful Clinton was all you like, you can sneer as you have at the notion that sexism and racism had any significant part to play in Trump's victory. You can even-falsely-characterize the labeling of the loss as solely due to such things according to the 'echo chamber'.

Won't be true, though.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:


We - the general liberal we, not just Sake - are still doing it. Instead of acknowledging a bad campaign and a bad candidate, and what we can do to win over those voters next time, everyone's howling about how the country is neck deep in isms.

Because the only thing that will make those voters happy is to turn back the clock to a time (when was that?) when the the America they imaging was economically sustainable. When it took zillions of small farms and lots of folks to work them because we didn't have farm machinery. When manufacturing wasn't automated so it took a lot of people to make stuff - forgetting that they were unionized so not a big window there, and before China became a modern country who produces stuff more cheaply. To reach out to them, we have to stop having a global economy. How does that happen exactly?
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
So Democratic turnout was low in a year where liberal rhetoric over Trump was an 11/10 on the panic dial, but Clinton wasn't a bad candidate? She was a superbly qualified candidate, sure she was, but in an election cycle where it was clear from the beginning that being part of the establishment was something big to overcome she was also a bad one. At least, if your goal is to win the election.

There are not 60 million sexist and racist voters in this country. There are a whole lot, yes, but they all tend to vote Republican anyway. It was the moderates that on the election for Trump. They chose him because he said what people whose quality of life has gone down wanted to hear about free trade agreements and the establishment.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I'd also genuinely be interested in seeing far left or progressive sources that are talking about this aspect of it, instead of lamenting how America is still neck deep in racists and sexists.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:


There are not 60 million sexist and racist voters in this country. There are a whole lot, yes, but they all tend to vote Republican anyway. It was the moderates that on the election for Trump. They chose him because he said what people whose quality of life has gone down wanted to hear about free trade agreements and the establishment.

They might not be sexist or racist but at best they did not care enough about not being sexist or racist - or homophobic - to vote against those who are and whose policies reflect that. They basically said, too bad about you and your rights but they are not really important to us.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
As kmboots, says, here's what I wrote in reddit:

quote:

The problem is that Trump is certainly going to support policies that will directly harm millions of people, the majority of whom are minorities; people who voted for Trump are essentially saying "Yeah, I'm okay with this."
They are okay with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, being reinstated.
They are okay with people going door to door to drag people away from friends and family and to put them on a boat back to their country of origin, where they'll likely die.
They are okay with sodomy laws being put back on the books and enforced.
They are okay with women's rights being restricted.
They are okay with the Federal government supporting a culture of racism, homophobia, islamophobia and xenophobia.
They are okay with all of this. And all of this is the tip of the iceberg.
This isn't generalizing, to support Trump you have to 100% be okay with and tolerate the fact that a good portion of people, of friends and family of the people, may very will suffer at the hands of a Trump Administration.
They are okay with this, this is objectively a fact.


 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:


We - the general liberal we, not just Sake - are still doing it. Instead of acknowledging a bad campaign and a bad candidate, and what we can do to win over those voters next time, everyone's howling about how the country is neck deep in isms.

Because the only thing that will make those voters happy is to turn back the clock to a time (when was that?) when the the America they imaging was economically sustainable. When it took zillions of small farms and lots of folks to work them because we didn't have farm machinery. When manufacturing wasn't automated so it took a lot of people to make stuff - forgetting that they were unionized so not a big window there, and before China became a modern country who produces stuff more cheaply. To reach out to them, we have to stop having a global economy. How does that happen exactly?
You don't have to fix their problems. You just have to listen to them and empathise and say that you'll do your best to fix them.

This rustbelt, manufacturing, poor white, rural bloc, however you want to refer to them, they were in pain and they were being ignored. Their way of life and their lives have gotten worse, not better, over the past eight years. They blame establishment politicians and big money interests for this, as they should! You can't even call them hyprocrites, as the first people who they told to piss off were the very type of Republicans that put in place policies that enlarged the wealth gap.

So why would anyone think that they're going to rally to a person who has been in that system for 30 years, who earned huge amounts in speaking fees talking to the very people that they hate? Why would they believe a two sentence blurb on her website that was only put there to patronize the Sanders bloc when she said to Wall Street in private that she has to have a "private" opinion and a "public" one?

Blayne, there are a lot of voters who don't believe that Trump is going to do those things, and half that list are just general Republican goals anyway. It may or may not be silly to think that he won't do what he said or that which is implied by his words, but people chose to believe that because of their desperation and anger, and the hope that Trump would actually fight against those they thought responsible.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

This rustbelt, manufacturing, poor white, rural bloc, however you want to refer to them, they were in pain and they were being ignored. Their way of life and their lives have gotten worse, not better, over the past eight years

The real, substantial solutions to their problems is basically some form of central planning and a massive expansion of the welfare safety net. I'm not convinced that any of them could be reasonably convinced to support such policies due to Fox News and the RWM and Think Tanks decidedly against anything that harms corporate neoliberal interests.

-Guaranteed Minimum Income.
-Affordable Housing.
-Infrastructure Investment and Jobs programs.
-Some form of the Japanese Ministry of the Economy, Industry, Trade, and Technology. Whose purpose is to "pick winners and losers" and to euthanize failing and unproductive industries, and see the seamless transition of the workers in those industries to more productive industries; long term investment into R&D, education, and training, and pursue a national trade and economy policy instead of "50 Experiments".

"We had good union paying jobs..." Those jobs are never coming back, globalism cannot be stopped. But the effects of it can be made painless through heavy government investment, planning, and intervention.

The people especially in the rural areas of the country, their livelihood is not a sustainable one. The private sector will not see the productivity or profit in their lives; there's no economy of scale; those farms will be automated and further mechanized until 1% of the population is all that is needed to maintain it.

But also that trend will continue, manufacturing, transportation, services; whole industries that employ hundreds of millions of people worldwide with automation will be entirely gone in the next 50 years; hundreds of millions of jobs will no longer exist.

You can't tax break your way out of that. Maybe they'll support the Democrats next time if the Democrats run on that platform, who knows; but the answer is definitely not rolling back the clock, which basically isn't possible.

quote:

Blayne, there are a lot of voters who don't believe that Trump is going to do those things

They are deluded and playing with fire. Like Jews who voted for Hitler, "Nah he doesn't mean US, he means the Soviet Jews..."
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Oh there is no question that Trump said all those things - an people ate it up with a spoon - but he is either stupid or lying or both. Their lives are going to keep getting worse and probably faster. Again, even Republicans can't bring back a golden age that doesn't exist. The most they can do is make the lives of women, minorities, LGBTQ people worse. Which may appease them.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Heisenberg, you realize that you're arguing "Trump voters are stupid and irrational, but at least they have their reasons."
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
And that, if Dems want their votes, they should just lie to them.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I'm saying that those reasons aren't, in a majority of them, racist ones. And if the left wants to ever try to make come back from this then they'd better think of some way to reach out to the people I've talked about above.

Or, you know, we could just keep calling them all bigots and dumbasses. Maybe we could invent a fourth branch of government so we could lose that, as well.

Dumb people also vote.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Maybe the solution to that is to help them be less dumb.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
That could definitely help. We could also try to bring those angry moderates together with the angry Sanders millenials; the roots of their anger lie in the same things.

Or we try to discuss with them some of the things Blayne mentioned.

The one thing that obviously won't work is pointing at laughing at the stupidity of desperate people who really, really want to believe in the words "Make America Great Again" whilst making Uncle Daddy redneck jokes.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
If even one of them had an actual answer to what they meant by "great again", that was in any way realistic or didn't boil down to straight, white, "Christian" folks on top and not having to worry about the rights of minorities, you might have a point.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Maybe the solution to that is to help them be less dumb.

hard to do when the school systems are being continuously and purposefully gutted
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Kate I'm not even one of them and even I know what they see in that phrase.

It means an America where they and theirs don't have to struggle to get by when once, not all that long ago, they could find work and provide for themselves satisfactorily, if not in great wealth. Where they don't have to watch their towns degrade into poverty stricken shitholes without any hope that it will ever get better. Where their plight isn't systematically ignored by DC.

Now, that almost certainly can't happen in the way they think it can, true. But to reduce that slogan and what it means to "White Christian patriarchy is pissed because we can't lynch black people anymore" is both objectively insulting and guaranteed to piss them off even more, because it just proves that the people saying that aren't listening to them.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

This is a really good article, written before the election, about some of the things I'm trying to say.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Kate I'm not even one of them and even I know what they see in that phrase.

It means an America where they and theirs don't have to struggle to get by when once, not all that long ago, they could find work and provide for themselves satisfactorily, if not in great wealth. Where they don't have to watch their towns degrade into poverty stricken shitholes without any hope that it will ever get better. Where their plight isn't systematically ignored by DC.

Now, that almost certainly can't happen in the way they think it can, true. But to reduce that slogan and what it means to "White Christian patriarchy is pissed because we can't lynch black people anymore" is both objectively insulting and guaranteed to piss them off even more, because it just proves that the people saying that aren't listening to them.

We have been over this. When? When was that? Rural America has always been grinding poverty for most of the people there. There just isn't enough demand to make jobs for everyone who wants to live there. Guess what? People in the cities don't want to live in poverty stricken s***holes either. And DC hasn't ignored them any more than anyone else. DC has, for example, tried to keep them from going bankrupt if they need medical treatment.

I said "realistic".
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

This is a really good article, written before the election, about some of the things I'm trying to say.

I am pretty sure we have all read that article and responded to it by now.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yeah, we've all read that article. The thing is, rural voters are still largely dipshits and need to stop being rural. Everyone knows this, even rural voters.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
We're not just talking about rural farmland. We're talking about the rustbelt. The manufacturing heart of America. The very battleground states that just voted for Trump. And people there, for the most part, were able to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle.

You're right. The establishment as a whole hasn't done much of anything for poor people. But Trump at least made them think he cared about him. Clinton didn't. She called them deplorables, in fact.

But hey, Kate, by all means, you and yours continue to belittle these people and tell them that it's okay, a LOT of people are poor, just give the same establishment that got us to here another four years and it'll all be better.

I mean, we'll continue to lose elections, and all of the very real consequences of that, but at least you'll have been right.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Sorry, I knew it was posted on Ornery, but there's a lot less crossover between here and there then there is between here and Sake.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So, again, we are back to lying and telling them that we can turn back the clock? Tell me how you are going to get manufacturing jobs in the rust belt? I mean Obama propped up the auto industry for a while but why would a corporation that makes things make them in - say - Kansas? What will make the corporation use people he has to pay a living wage to instead of automation? Why won't he send the stuff that can't be automated to China? Is the American worker going to work cheaper than the Chinese worker? Going to be okay with the same safety and working conditions? Okay. So we attack the trade agreements to try to keep foreign made good out. Of course, this will mean that the thing we do make will have a considerable smaller market. But okay. We make the things here. How much are they going to cost made here? Immigrants aren't taking American manufacturing jobs. They may be taking service jobs - food service, cab drivers, migrant workers.

You aren't listening. I am not saying it will be all better. I am saying that it is not going to be better unless they adapt to life in the 21st century. That the last people who will even try to make it better are the corporation-loving Republicans who want to further deregulate wages and workers' rights and insurance help and environmental regulations that might keep them from being poisoned.

That isn't belittling; it is respecting them enough to tell the truth.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
No. We can go in and promise to subsidize new industries in their areas. You know, like Obama did. We can do the things I listed in a post above.

Obama handed Clinton and McCain their behinds in 08 because he came in as an antiestablishment person with very little political experience. He told people that the system had failed them, and he would go to DC and fight to change that to help them. He even had a catchy yet ultimately empty catchphrase.

That sound like anyone we know?

Until things get better for people, being an outsider and/or antiestablishment candidate ultimately gives a person a massive advantage. That's how things are now.

Clinton was a poor choice of candidate from the very beginning.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
But the good news is, Chris Rock has announced he's running in 2020.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
No. We can go in and promise to subsidize new industries in their areas. You know, like Obama did. We can do the things I listed in a post above.

Obama handed Clinton and McCain their behinds in 08 because he came in as an antiestablishment person with very little political experience. He told people that the system had failed them, and he would go to DC and fight to change that to help them. He even had a catchy yet ultimately empty catchphrase.

That sound like anyone we know?

Until things get better for people, being an outsider and/or antiestablishment candidate ultimately gives a person a massive advantage. That's how things are now.

Clinton was a poor choice of candidate from the very beginning.

And things aren't going to get better unless they adapt. Newcomer or not. Are you talking about just getting them to vote for a candidate or actually about making things better?
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Of course they have to adapt. But Clinton never targeted those voters on the issues that mattered to them. She should have.

And ultimately? Yeah. I'm trying to look on the bright side and hope Trump remains as contrary and untrue to his word as he ever has been, but the possible consequences of this election are both extreme and potentially extremely long lasting. (The Supreme Court.)

If that was the only option, Clinton should have walked in there and lied. It was that important.

Besides, rumor has it she's completely okay with having two different opinions on something, one public, one private.

Or we could have nominated the antiestablishment candidate with a 40 year long history of speaking out against the absolute shittiest things that the Federal government has done, even when it was unpopular. And who hated and publically blamed Wall Street and trade deals.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It's clear you haven't actually read her remarks on two opinions. In, you know, a surprise to no one.

Basically what your point seems to be from how I've understood it is this: Clinton was such a bad candidate that even an obvious, flagrant liar with decades of the opposite of experience in helping non-college educated white American workers seemed like a better choice because he sounded confident and said though never offered a plan that he would make America great again.

Which has little if any bearing on decades of coordinated, virulent sexism being directed at Clinton, I'm sure. For that matter politically Trump was an outsider and anti-establishment, sure, but in terms of his life before and even during his candidacy? Economically he was *exactly* the sort of person that had been ****ing them over and destroying the American middle class.

Part of the reason his supporters were willing to overlook that was, sure, he appealed to anger at Washington. But goddamnit, part of the reason they were willing to believe that a man who flies around in a *gold-plated jet* was somehow a *populist* concerned with helping the little guy is that they had been spoonfed almost a whole generation of toxic targeting, and not a little of that was anger at an 'uppity' woman.

If your overall point is 'don't talk to supporters that way, it will be ineffective', well in fact I think you probably have a point there. But I don't think it is your point, or at least it hasn't seemed to be. I think your point is also that you want to handwave away the idea that a substantial part of why she was a bad candidate was that *any* woman who entered politics over 20 years ago on the national stage would be seriously dinged up. And if you don't want to credit that ask yourself: if you were reading this in a history book, would you credit that early entrants into politics, members of a disenfranchised group, tend to get a fair shake first time around? Or would you expect what in fact actually tends to happen, that for the pioneers it's a murderous slog with a low success rate where every strategic and tactical misstep is much more damaging and every success doesn't carry quite as far?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Or we could have nominated the antiestablishment candidate with a 40 year long history of speaking out against the absolute shittiest things that the Federal government has done, even when it was unpopular. And who hated and publically blamed Wall Street and trade deals.
I don't like the way the media and the DNC annointed Clinton. But don't act like Bernie was a solid bet for a win.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Part of the problem though, is that many of those people are conditioned to believe in are against their best interests to an palpably Pavlovian degree.

Like I'm sure Capaxfudgebuggery or Ron, and Dan Frank if he still posts here, would all visibly whiten at the suggestions I made, because they are essentially socialism, anti-free market capitalism (even though the private sphere would benefit hugely and be mostly the ones implementing such policies!).

Oh you're in poverty? Lets pass MinCome so you won't EVER worry about starving, or not paying rent and you won't have to take the first shitty McBurger job that offers you a position.

"SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!!!!!!!! BETTER DEAD THAN RED ARGLEBARGLE!!!!! *BLIND KNEE JERK REACTIONARY REFERENCE TO STALIN HERE!!!!!*"

Oh the jobs are leaving your state and you got laid off? Here's 100 billion dollars for your state to build a Japan/China style bullet train system so you can find work in the city but still live in the country side and you can have a job helping to build it over the next decade and save that money for earn for your retirement.


"SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!!!!!!!! BETTER DEAD THAN RED ARGLEBARGLE!!!!! *BLIND KNEE JERK REACTIONARY REFERENCE TO STALIN HERE!!!!!*"

Look, coal power is killing people. Killing the environment. It's unproductive and unprofitable; also shale and petrol isn't good enough, we need nuclear and renewables, which invest billions into R&D and start ups and fund major companies/firms to convert our grid to a green and sustainable one.

"THATS THE GOVERNMENT PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS! CLIMATE CHANGE IS A CONSPIRACY BY LIEBERAL 'SCIENTISTS' WHO DON\'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! THEY ARE PAID BY CHYNA! IT SNOWED MAN LAST WEEK HOW CAN IT BE WARMING!? SOCIALISM! ARGLEBARGLE!"

They seriously don't understand that change is coming and it's going to lead to a catastrophic wealth gap that the 'free market' can't fix, the invisible hand is a myth. The only answer by then when it is too late is armed revolution like in 1917 or 1949; climate change is going to make people desperate when hundreds of millions of people are forced to leave their homes and migrate inland and further crowd the cities.

Then there is the racism aspect; many of the people that Trump appealed to genuinely want more government services but not if people who don't "deserve" it can also access those systems, aka black people and illegals.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Hey, thanks for the backhanded insult, Rakeesh, but I've read the quote and her explanation of it's meaning.

She's willing to say one thing in public and another in private to help negotiate with the opposition.

Have many of the attacks on her been based on sexism? Of course.

I've thoroughly disliked her for a while, and it's because of poor past judgment, an inherent dislike of establishment politicians, and a closeness with Wall Street and special interests that I find distasteful. I'm a Sanders millenial. The only other politician that I've actually admired was Obama. And I'd feel the same about anyone with her record, man or woman.

I think there were many Trump voters who felt the same way I did about her, for the same reasons, with the added incentive that he wasn't a politician and promised great things. And while there were obviously voters who wouldn't vote for her because she was a woman, (like with Obama/race), I believe that the number of voters in the first group vastly outnumbered them.

You disagree, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind. Shall we just agree to disagree before we end up just insulting each other?
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Or we could have nominated the antiestablishment candidate with a 40 year long history of speaking out against the absolute shittiest things that the Federal government has done, even when it was unpopular. And who hated and publically blamed Wall Street and trade deals.
I don't like the way the media and the DNC annointed Clinton. But don't act like Bernie was a solid bet for a win.
As for this, there's no way to look into a parallel universe.

But Sanders was a populist antiestablishment politician with a pristine voting record. He had all of the angry populist support of Trump without the dumbassery, isms, and just general Trumpiness.

He would have zeroed out many of Trump's best advantages with the battleground state voters that mattered, by virtue of speaking to them in the same way without the sickening stuff.

I am completely certain he would have done better then Clinton.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Look I do my posting from a phone. So sometimes, especially in long posts, I end up forgetting what was said in the latter half of what I'm responding to.

Yes. It is absolutely my point that talking down to the other side like they're automatically bigots and racists and idiots is absolutely asinine and probably cost us this election. That there were reasons beyond that to back Trump and reject Clinton.

In reference to what you said my other point was. I've said from the beginning, sexism played a part. She's gone through a lot of shit that she shouldn't have, and she has had to work harder then a man would. She has also done and said things that would also make me dislike a man. You can believe that, or just assume I'm sexist, I guess.

[ November 11, 2016, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Heisenberg ]
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
On a different note, the one we may have to really worry about is Pence.

The Congress is still in the hands of establishment Republicans, who really don't like Trump.

Because it's Trump, it's almost a guarantee that he's going to do something impeachable at some point. If he's done enough to piss Congress off, I can see them showing him the door to get Pence.

And unlike Trump, who you can at least hope will forget what he'd said he'd do, or change his mind on something because it's been like two weeks, Pence is a straight up conservative who has worked all his political life in service of the most vile Republican ideals. Pence, Ryan, and McConnell would get shit DONE in pretty much the worst possible way.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
they are going to use him to get nearly as much done anyway.
 
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 
What a week. Here's a bit of a braindump:

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I don't like the way the media and the DNC annointed Clinton. But don't act like Bernie was a solid bet for a win.

We can't peer into alternate timelines, we can only look at the evidence that's available to us. As much talk as there was in May of the dubious nature of the hypothetical head-to-head polling showing a Sanders landslide and a Clinton squeaker, those polls were pretty close on Clinton's popular vote margin after all.

In terms of positioning, Sanders would have done pretty well. He could speak to the issues that drove voters to Trump while contrasting favorably to Trump on issues that Clinton was unable to, like connections to the wealthy banks and the political insiders who ignored people's needs for so long. The polling and strategic argument for why Sanders would have won this election big is so strong that people who doubt it should probably have to provide evidence of why they think Sanders, currently the most popular (by approval rating) politician on the national stage, would have lost to the worst Republican candidate in our lifetimes.

--

I don't blame Clinton for running, and I supported her campaign in the general after she beat the candidate who I thought had a much better path to a much larger Democratic victory in the fall. She's got some great experience for the job. But also some history and a very cautious strategy that wouldn't have led to much positive change. She buys into a lot of assumptions about how the world works that lock us in those patterns, and some of those assumptions are really disturbing, like the necessity of bombing wedding parties with drones. She faced some very fair criticism and additional measures of criticism that others have not had to face. For some reason, it wasn't really brought up by politicians that the Bush White House used RNC email servers and lost 22 million emails... somehow others have gotten away with that. Sexism is a real dynamic in the campaign, and let's call it out where it exists and try to remove those obstacles from the path in 2018 and 2020, but we can't use "sexism" as a reason not to talk about problems with a candidate. But there were many other reasons she was a poor strategic choice for a candidate in 2016.

This week is bad, gives me a bad feeling about the quality of American democracy, but what was really scaring me in 2014 was that we were going to be stuck with a Clinton v a Bush when what the world needed was change to so many of the assumptions that have been built up over decades. We got a differently hellish battle that has made the world a pretty awful place to turn on the TV news in for the last 12 months, but we almost got the Democratic candidate that would have excited millions of Americans to vote for something, not against.

I do blame the DNC for not running a fair primary that could have been a proof point that the Democratic Party is the institution that aims to improve our democracy and electoral systems. (Why is Donna Brazile allowed near the office this week?) They could have tried building a movement based on reducing the impact of money in elections and providing fair competition and voting rules that promote the ability for the people to make the best ideological and strategic decision for a presidential candidate to run in the general. Instead, we have DNC staff and hundreds of "superdelegates" who chose their candidate before the primary season started and weren't interested in debates or public participation of the electorate to help them choose. Those insiders chose to be a party closed to the voices of people who were frustrated with a Democratic Party that isn't really all that democratic. That choice lost them the general election, and they need to be held accountable for that. We need a party that can improve democracy in this country. Let's see if the left wing of the party gets to take a chance at building that movement now that the centrist wing failed to even try.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Some people are trying to make an issue out of the fact that though Trump won convincingly in the Electoral College, he did not win the popular vote. But it is not much of an issue, since the difference in the popular vote was only 395,050. That is out of over 120 million who voted. That small difference could be explained by the dead people who Democrats got to vote for them. [Wink]

Now we are beginning to hear Trump walking back some of his more extreme statements, even suggesting he might preserve some parts of Obamacare. I said this might happen back when he was waging his nomination battle with more worthy candidates, like Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. As I and others have pointed out, Trump has been a lifelong liberal Democrat, and even gave substantial donations to Hillary's presidential bid in 2008. I'm just glad the Clinton crime family did not get to take over the White House. We'll have to see how many of his promises Trump keeps. The first real test will come in whom he nominates to replace Justice Anton Scalia on the Supreme Court.

[ November 11, 2016, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Great post, Nato. I agree with every word.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
hang on though

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
By the way, Ron, congrats on not being completely wrong for the second time in your history here at Hatrack.

so

did ron make a prediction trump was going to win? i thought he did earlier, but because trump actually won, now i'm wondering if that's a prediction ron actually made
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Some people are trying to make an issue out of the fact that though Trump won convincingly in the Electoral College, he did not win the popular vote. But it is not much of an issue, since the difference in the popular vote was only 395,050. That is out of over 120 million who voted. That small difference could be explained by the dead people who Democrats got to vote for them. [Wink]

Actually the Electoral College is a huge issue.

See here

Also here

Basically your ignorance in this topic is no surprise, but don't pretend for one second that the Electoral College isn't fundamentally a problem with American Democracy that is a ticking timebomb to Civil War as soon as it's ever tied.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, what would really create a crisis with the Electoral College would be for some of the electors not to vote the way the people voted--which they are free to do. Imagine what would happen if the electors chose to make Hillary the winner!

The Electoral College is not a big enough issue for any real organized effort to be made to do away with it. Where is the legislation that would be needed? This is only talked about after an election that has been hotly contested, where the sore losers wish things could have been different.

It would be far more profitable to inquire honestly why so many African-Americans chose not to vote in this election. Almost a third less voted in Detroit alone, compared to 2012. And remember, Trump's total margin of victory in Michigan was only 13,225. True, Trump did not need to win Michigan--but he did need to win Pennsylvania, and Florida, and Ohio, and North Carolina--all of which have large African-American populations.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Imma break it down for you, Ronnie.

The debate over the electoral college is a debate over whether the individual states themselves should have more say over who is President, or whether it should be a popular vote. Which do you think it should be? And why?

And personally, I agree with you. Donald Trump is a leaf in the wind, and I'm absolutely hoping that the breeze shifts him away from conservative causes now that he's won the presidency and had his ego stroked.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Also for this election cycle, and in this political climate, Clinton was an awful Democratic candidate. You might as well ask why Whitey McScrooge didn't have the best of turnouts in 2012.

Enjoy your victory. I personally am hoping it'a ephemeral at best and Trump stays Trumpian. If not, rest assured that me and mine will be fighting you and yours every single centimeter of the way.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
So where does that 16% of the vote go? Does it split evenly between the two candidates? Or swing more toward one or the other? This chart maps out how undecideds broke in several close Senate contests over the past few elections. I'm not sure of the methodology, but it appears that in most cases the 'undecideds' seem to break disproportionately toward one candidate or another.

If this translates to the Presidential election, it means that this election could still be a blowout either way, with Trump winning Oregon or Minnesota, or Clinton winning Georgia or Arizona. Or, if the shifts are idiosyncratic, it could mean a large deviation from the fairly consistent red/blue maps we've seen over the last four elections.

In the end, it was sort of a mix of these things; Clinton got unexpectedly close in Georgia and Arizona, and of course Trump overtook her in the mid-West (although he didn't quite capture Minnesota).

Here's how undecideds broke for a few signficant states, courtesy of FiveThirtyEight:

State/Clinton share/Trump share
Wisconsin 30% 59%
Minnesota 31 53
Utah 19 41
Iowa 34 54
Pennsylvania 37 54
Florida 38 55
Maine 33 49
New Hampshire 37 52
Michigan 39 50
North Carolina 41 49
New Mexico 41 46
Ohio 43 46
Virginia 45 42
Nevada 45 40
Georgia 52 42

I wonder whether the results portend anything permanent or if they really are just idiosyncratic shifts. Do PA, OH, WI, MI become Republicans to lose in 2018 and beyond? Are AZ, GA, TX on the brink of being purple states? If so, this could be a transition between the coastal vs. interior red blue maps we've seen for 20-30 years and the beginning of a more North/South map dominated by a labor divide between the old industrial base in the North and Sun Belt Latino-infused labor in the South.

Personally I lean toward it being idiosyncratic, especially given Trump as the GOP standard bearer. I imagine he will disappoint those who put him in office almost right away and they will go back to feeling frustrated and ignored and we'll slide back into ideological, progressive vs. conservative politics.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Elison, what would really create a crisis with the Electoral College would be for some of the electors not to vote the way the people voted--which they are free to do. Imagine what would happen if the electors chose to make Hillary the winner!

The Electoral College is not a big enough issue for any real organized effort to be made to do away with it. Where is the legislation that would be needed? This is only talked about after an election that has been hotly contested, where the sore losers wish things could have been different.

It would be far more profitable to inquire honestly why so many African-Americans chose not to vote in this election. Almost a third less voted in Detroit alone, compared to 2012. And remember, Trump's total margin of victory in Michigan was only 13,225. True, Trump did not need to win Michigan--but he did need to win Pennsylvania, and Florida, and Ohio, and North Carolina--all of which have large African-American populations.

The reasons why Hillary lost is something the Democratic Party will be intensely studying and debating going forward, it looks like Keith Ellison will be made the new DNC Chair meaning the party will embrace the Bernie Sanders wing for their strategy going forward; so you better prey that Trump is only a mediocre President because we might actually get a real progressive and economic populist candidate for 2020, who will win if Trump is the dumpster fire we all think he is.

As for the Electoral College did you click the links? We now have five times in US history in which not only has it produced a result that did not reflect the will of the people; but even you should look at the map of the counties that went Democrat and realize that the Electoral College does not actually do the job of having the States have a say in picking the next President.

Look at his second video and not only is it possible to win the Electoral College with only 25% of the vote (a failure of Democracy) but the real issue is that only a minority of swing states actually matter for choosing the next President.

Remember, Republican turnout was roughly the same it was the last two elections; Democratic turnout is what fell; so if Democratic turnout recovers to it's 2012 level for 2020 the Democrats win because they only need to win in Florida because they'll have carried all the other states they need because of the metropolitan areas.

As the US population grows and the metro areas become denser the importance of a few States, most notably the states that all were leaning Dem in polling plus Texas (further highlighting that Demographics may make Texas a purple state over the next decade or two).

Even you should see this as a structural failure of the Electoral College because it means the Democrats may, as soon as they correct their messaging and choose better candidates for office to fix their turnout will just have a permanent lock on the Presidency.

The problem with the Electoral College is a structural and long term disaster that only needs a 269-269 tie once, or as you say the Electors awarding the Presidency against the will of the people for civil war to occur; even if it is merely for cynical reasons you should support it's reform as an important issue; this is a fundamental issue with your democracy.

Additionally the House should be elected via Single Transferable Voting and not First Past the Post and the Presidency should be elected via Alternative Vote to avoid further undemocratic outcomes. You should ALSO support this because STV would lead to an increased amount of Republican representation in deeply blue states like New York.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
Speaking of Democratic turn out, has any seen any hard data on the effects of the various voter suppression, I mean anti-fraud measures? I saw one article that talked about the Voters Rights Act but it didn't have actual numbers.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I think it made the difference in NC, but it shouldn't have come down to that.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
It's easy to talk about changing how voting would work.

In reality, it would take 2/3 of State (majority Republican) legislatures going along with it. Who here sees that happening?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Good point, Heisenberg. In case anyone is not aware, it will require a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College--which means 2/3 of both houses of Congress must vote in favor of the amendment, and 3/4 of all state legislatures must vote in favor. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment

As for the vain attempt to link voter ID verification with voter suppression, only a person who intends to perpetrate voter fraud would object to voters being required to present proper identification to vote. After all, you have to do this to get a driver's license, or fly on a plane, etc. Characterizing this as "voter suppression" is utterly irrational. It is interesting that only Democrats feel the need to object to voter ID verification.

[ November 12, 2016, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
Last time I checked, there was no constitutional right to drive or fly. Not to mention I'm just characterizing it as described by some of its proponents.

The Electoral College can be worked around if the states agree to assign electors based on the results of the national popular vote (I'm feeling too lazy to look up what they're calling it). Once states totally 270 votes have agreed the Electoral College would always reflect the popular vote. No amendment required.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
TFW you realize that you've been living in Europe long enough that you automatically describe incremental changes in centimeters instead of inches.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I thought I had come up with an original name for the president-elect: Trumplestiltskin. Unfortunately, when I Googled the name, I discovered someone had already thought of it.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
NobleHunter, I have a constitutional right not to have someone else pretend to be me and vote in my name.

I also have a constitutional right to expect of my country that we have honest elections.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
Only insofar as it interferes with your ability to vote.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
You have a constitutional right to vote and not be charged for it, or be put to trouble to be permitted to do it.

Getting a driver's license isn't free. Even when government issued ID is free it can often be troublesome to get. So, Ron, would you support free and easy access to government issued ID for anyone who wants it?

Also, though I suspect you already know this, your reference to flying is irrelevant.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
And the documents required to get them.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
NobleHunter, I have a constitutional right not to have someone else pretend to be me and vote in my name.

I also have a constitutional right to expect of my country that we have honest elections.

Poll taxes for voting were found to be unconstitutional, being forced to spend money to get ID to be able to vote is akin to a poll tax Ron; and thus unconstitutional.

If you're super worried about elections not being honest without government ID, then why not have a Federal issued ID that's issued automatically when you turn ID (You can have this handled in highschool just like Quebec does for our transportation passes) while also automatically opting in everyone into being registered to vote (with an option to opt out if you so choose?).

This way everyone wins, you can be sure that your elections are honest because everyone will have picture ID; why not support this?

This is putting aside the fact that it has been proven that there is no statistically significant voter fraud in the last few elections. The total number of fraudulent ballots was 37 in 2012 iirc.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
there has been no significant voter fraud

there have been significantly unconstitutional attempts at preventing minorities from voting
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I don't care if photo ID is made available for free. It is an absolute necessity that elections are secure. I don't want felons, illegal aliens, and cemetery residents to be able to vote. Only living citizens in good standing with the law should be able to vote. I realize this strikes at the heart of key liberal Democrat constituencies.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I don't care if photo ID is made available for free. It is an absolute necessity that elections are secure. I don't want felons, illegal aliens, and cemetery residents to be able to vote. Only living citizens in good standing with the law should be able to vote. I realize this strikes at the heart of key liberal Democrat constituencies.

Again, this has pretty much not happened in the modern democratic landscape. But what has happened, was laws passed to prevent the poor from voting.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I don't care if photo ID is made available for free. It is an absolute necessity that elections are secure. I don't want felons, illegal aliens, and cemetery residents to be able to vote. Only living citizens in good standing with the law should be able to vote. I realize this strikes at the heart of key liberal Democrat constituencies.

Your racist rhetoric aside Ron, what evidence do you have that there is the sort of voter fraud in person identification would prevent is happening? Elections *are* secure. You're claiming a conspiracy-provide some evidence for it, and be prepared to have it challenged.

...is what I would say to a man with integrity in discussions of politics.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I don't care if photo ID is made available for free. It is an absolute necessity that elections are secure. I don't want felons, illegal aliens, and cemetery residents to be able to vote. Only living citizens in good standing with the law should be able to vote. I realize this strikes at the heart of key liberal Democrat constituencies.

there has been no significant voter fraud

there have been significantly unconstitutional attempts at preventing minorities from voting

there has been no significant voter fraud

there have been significantly unconstitutional attempts at preventing minorities from voting
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I don't care if photo ID is made available for free. It is an absolute necessity that elections are secure. I don't want felons, illegal aliens, and cemetery residents to be able to vote. Only living citizens in good standing with the law should be able to vote. I realize this strikes at the heart of key liberal Democrat constituencies.

there

has

been

no

significant

voter

fraud
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
here is a link to a news story detailing how the north carolina GOP using fears of 'voter fraud making elections insecure' to pass laws whose actual intent (AS THEY ALWAYS ARE) to prevent minorities from voting because minorities vote against the GOP

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/opinion/north-carolinas-voting-restrictions-struck-down-as-racist.html?_r=0

quote:
The scurrilous attempt by North Carolina Republicans to suppress the rising power of black voters was struck down on Friday by a federal appeals court that concluded that the state’s voting strictures “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”

The decision means that the voting power of black citizens in the important swing state will not be hobbled in November by a repressive 2013 law that the court found was steeped in blatant racism, in violation of the Constitution. “Because of race, the Legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,” the court ruled.

The court, in finding that the law was designed as a deliberate tool to reduce the African-American vote, is the latest to beat back attempts by Republican statehouses to interfere with minority and new voters.

here is a link to a news story detailing how voter fraud influenced a US election ever

http://www.thereisnothinghere.nope/thislinkgoestonothing/thisisnotarealsite/becausetheresnosignificantvoterfraud/soicantlinktoastorydetailingsomething that doesntexist

quote:
this website doesn't exist, ron lambert, because the shit you are talking about never happened, so it doesn't exist, i guess that's okay because you like to believe a lot of shit that doesn't exist, like the 'barack nate dhlana' video you use to uphold your fiercely bigoted beliefs about obama being born in kenya. well anyway there's no significant voter fraud seeya

 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Samprimary, you are obviously sorely ignorant about history. Voter fraud is rife in every election. The cemetery vote in Chicago is what enabled JFK to win over Nixon. Democrats like to hide behind the dishonest refrain, "You can't really prove it, can you?" Even though time and again, comparison with voter records and lists of those who were dead afterwards have shown that lots of people were recorded as voting when they were dead. This is documented, over and over. There are even a very few cases where Republicans in some places in the south were guilty of election fraud, though it is mainly liberal Democrats who are guilty. You just don't care, and pretend the evidence is not conclusive. So they keep getting away with it, and pretend it has never happened. It is because of people like you that honest Americans demand that there be strict voter ID verification. How can anyone not see the irresistable logic that voter ID verification is essential for the integrity of any election?

[ November 13, 2016, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
If it happens all the time and is documented after the fact since Kennedy, by all means show us. Dare you.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Here are a few links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/electionfraud/
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/video-voter-fraud-caught-on-camera-in-pennsylvania-election-2016

quote:
According to the National Review, undercover agents with New York City Department of Investigations "showed up at 63 polling places [in the fall of 2013] and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials."

In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. ... Given that someone who is dead, is in jail, or has moved isn’t likely to complain if someone votes in his name, how do we know that voter fraud at the polls isn’t a problem? An ounce of prevention — in the form of voter ID and better training of poll workers — should be among the minimum precautions taken to prevent an electoral miscarriage or meltdown in a close race.

Link: https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_fraud

quote:
Published on Oct 18, 2016

In the second video of James O'Keefe's new explosive series on the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, Democratic party operatives tell us how to successfully commit voter fraud on a massive scale. Scott Foval, who has since been fired, admits that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

quote:
On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune, among others, to conclude that "once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen." What's more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case.
Link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.html

quote:
But state and city elections officials contend the massive voting fraud of the past is history, citing new technology and changes in voting laws have made the potential for fraud a fraction of what existed in the past. They say the concern now is voter intimidation techniques.

“We don’t claim perfection. We know we’re trying to live down the history of this agency from our parents’ and our grandparents’ generations,” said Jim Allen, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

Link: http://www.heraldnet.com/news/official-chicago-legacy-of-voter-fraud-has-been-cleaned-up/

Don't read just the parts of these articles that you might like; read all the articles, and take due note of what is actually admitted. Election fraud does and has always existed, even--as some admit--on a massive scale. And usually it is Democrats committing it.

[ November 13, 2016, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I can't provide any actual evidence that voter fraud happened above an absolutely non-significant quantity, or that the potential effects of such action were historically taken against conservatives. I really can't! But I'm really not used to conceding the point so I went and found some garbage from literally Project Veritas that I am going to link and use to try to support my false worldview.

I think the only thing I can do now is assume that what you are saying is contradicted by showing any indication whatsoever by any source whatsoever, even James O'Keefe, that voting fraud ever happened at all. I will assume that providing this information makes me right and you wrong. I'm not going to be able to understand why not. I'll never change.

I know it's really disappointingly "ron lambert" of me but ... guys, I just can't help it. If you expected better of me you should have stopped years ago. I'm sorry, everyone. I'm so sorry. Please forgive me.

Oh, it's okay, Ron ol' buddy. We can't all be perfect. You do you. I guess those links are at least amusing though.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Samprimary, you are obviously sorely ignorant about history.

I don't want to hear this from someone who thinks the Germans were close to winning WWII in late 1941.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Samprimary, I never posted what you say I posted.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I can't provide any actual evidence that voter fraud happened above an absolutely non-significant quantity, or that the potential effects of such action were historically taken against conservatives. I really can't! But I'm really not used to conceding the point so I went and found some garbage from literally Project Veritas that I am going to link and use to try to support my false worldview.

I think the only thing I can do now is assume that what you are saying is contradicted by showing any indication whatsoever by any source whatsoever, even James O'Keefe, that voting fraud ever happened at all. I will assume that providing this information makes me right and you wrong. I'm not going to be able to understand why not. I'll never change.

I know it's really disappointingly "ron lambert" of me but ... guys, I just can't help it. If you expected better of me you should have stopped years ago. I'm sorry, everyone. I'm so sorry. Please forgive me.

I have never said any such stupid thing as the above.

Elison, just goes to show--"To make a conservative angry, tell him a lie. To make a liberal angry, tell him the truth." I backed up what I said with facts, which you of course ignored, and resorted to the usual liberal's recourse: closed-minded insult and derision.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Elison, just goes to show--"To make Ron angry, remind him that he has a lot of trouble with the truth, like with WWII history, birtherism, climate science, or literally anything involving biology and evolutionary theory."

It's ok ron we know
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Ron, your 'sources' were in two cases from sources so fanatical they make even other non-fanatical conservatives uncomfortable. I realize I should've specified: something *credible*, not your usual bullshit of finding one or two sources as fanatic as you and then citing them as representative experts, such as your refrain about the 'Clinton Crime Family', where you scroll past scores of law enforcement officials who say 'yeah that's crazy' and find one who doesn't.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Rakeesh--figured you would say something utterly dishonest like that. Obviously you have not done any internet searches at all on the subject, have you? I gave you six links, and quoted from four of them. Can you read those articles and still maintain there has never been any case of election fraud? This is why I have no respect for liberals--they don't even know how to debate anything honestly. They react to contrary facts with blind rejection, followed by insult and derision. How can you bigots even function in the real world? The professors who brainwashed you with misinformation should be prosecuted. That is what is really harming this country, more than anything else.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
The Slate link seems to support the idea there's a lack of significant voter fraud. Rather than airy generalizations, there was a serious investigation into a specific instance. They didn't really find much and so they're left with well this one county is ridiculously corrupt, so...

The Heraldnet article says there has been cheating but not any more. Fixed, you'll note, without voter ID or restricting absentee voting or other methods the GOP seems so fond of.

Ballotpedia says it could be done without offering any proof that it is done. While a hallmark of conspiracy theory thinking, I trust you don't expect it to be convincing.

Did you even read your links?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Noblehunter, like I said, don't just seize on the portions of the articles you like--such as the efforts made to eliminate election fraud. NOTICE WHAT IS ACTUALLY ADMITTED.

I certainly did read all the article in those links. That is why I said what I did. I know how you liberals have a proclivity for seizing on portions you like, and ignoring everything else. You just can't help yourselves, can you? You've been programmed by professors who took your tuition money and then taught you anti-knowledge. Their own personal, biased opinions asserted falsely as historical fact, which you had to agree with on pain of being marked down in your grades. You poor wretches don't even realize how sorely you've been victimized.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
"NOTICE WHAT IS ACTUALLY ADMITTED"

Like all of the GOP politicians who state outright that the purpose of Voter ID is to hurt the Democrats and not to actually fight instances of voter fraud? (Which again, does not actually happen, there were only 37 instances in 2012).

quote:

I know how you liberals have a proclivity for seizing on portions you like, and ignoring everything else.

And I know how YOU, you alone, you specifically, aren't an honest, credible individual in this discussion. Maybe there are a lot of Conservatives who are just like you, but I'm going to hold you accountable for your own systematic dishonesty.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
I noticed only one article of the three I read said there'd been substantial fraud in the past and that the fraud significantly pre-dates the GOP's current mania for voter ID.

I only took one course on American history and it was visual culture. So my professor's opinions really have nothing to do with this, though if you want to discuss 18th marriage law in England, your bizarre allegation would at least be on topic.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I know how you liberals have a proclivity for seizing on portions you like, and ignoring everything else. You just can't help yourselves, can you?

You poor wretches don't even realize how sorely you've been victimized.

Can we have a photo of you so we can put it in the dictionary under "psychological projection"
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Oh, come on, people. It should be possible to either argue in sufficiently good faith that I don't find myself defending Ron Lambert, of all people; or else to shut your pie holes. He did, in fact, provide some sources. I have not seen anyone actually engage with those links, except to shout "unclean, unclean!". And Samprimary, repeated assertion does not an argument make. As for 'racist arguments', when everything is racist, nothing is; you'd think this election might have highlighted the futility of crying wolf on the point. At this point it's not even an accusation, it's more like a nervous tic.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Did someone call me?
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Oh, come on, people. It should be possible to either argue in sufficiently good faith that I don't find myself defending Ron Lambert, of all people; or else to shut your pie holes. He did, in fact, provide some sources. I have not seen anyone actually engage with those links, except to shout "unclean, unclean!". And Samprimary, repeated assertion does not an argument make. As for 'racist arguments', when everything is racist, nothing is; you'd think this election might have highlighted the futility of crying wolf on the point. At this point it's not even an accusation, it's more like a nervous tic.

Extraordinary claims, that the Democrats are engaging in persuasive voter fraud, or that voter fraud is happening at levels that voter ID is necessary for Ron to feel that his constitutional rights are not being violated, require extraordinary evidence.

NobleHunter already did click the links and did the odious task of having to vet Ron's sources and as expected they are questionable or otherwise out of context.

quote:

It should be possible to either argue in sufficiently good faith

Ron has proven a long time ago that not only does he not do this, but he thinks we're demons going to hell for disagreeing with him.

Also he still insists he had "answered" my rebuttal to him in a previous thread but he never did, I even dug up the time stamps.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Oh, come on, people. It should be possible to either argue in sufficiently good faith that I don't find myself defending Ron Lambert, of all people; or else to shut your pie holes.

are you arguing with ron lambert in sufficiently good faith, or is this more that you're just upset most people don't take him seriously for you anymore
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
like i mean if you want to be the next person to find out that if you present detailed information about why ron is wrong, he will just stridently fail to be able to comprehend it and then pathologically demean you, please lead by example rather than wondering why people don't spend too much energy to kick at lucy footballs anymore re: ron
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Ron has proven a long time ago that not only does he not do this, but he thinks we're demons going to hell for disagreeing with him.
This is true. So that's an excellent argument for going to the second of my two proposed courses of action, to wit, shutting the f*ck up and ignoring him. Like I'm about to do with Samp.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison R. Salazar, I really must object to you putting words in my mouth, crediting me with saying things I never said. All you and your cohorts have ever done is avoid dealing with the evidence and sound arguments I present, then you lie about it and pretend that somehow you "defeated" me in argument. It gets to the point where you are so utterly silly in your comments that I have chosen you aren't worth any more of my time and effort. Then of course you use that to claim victory. All you do by using such infantile tactics is prove that I am right, and demonstrate that you are in the Wrong.

[ November 15, 2016, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
It has been wisely observed that nothing is more pitiable than a partisan who believes his own propaganda. So in the interest of bringing some solace to the liberal partisans who make themselves evident here, and work themselves into a tizzy worrying about what a horrible nightmare a Donald Trump presidency will amount to, let me point out that much of what the left has said about Trump is not at all true. For example, the claim is made as if it were revealed from God, that Trump is a racist. But those who have known him the longest say that is not true. Just this evening, Mayor Rudy Guilliani said that he has known Trump for 25 years, and "there is not a prejudiced bone in his body." For concrete evidence, look at his generous hiring policies toward African-Americans and to Hispanics, seen in the establishments he owns in Florida.

Yes, it was stupid for him to criticize the judge involved in a lawsuit against him, for being hispanic. But rather than jump to the subjective conclusion that he said this out of prejudice, consider the more logical explanation that he was poorly expressing his view that the judge would probably be prejudiced against him, because of Trump's stands on illegal immigration.

And as one who has in the past supported Ben Carson and then Ted Cruz AGAINST Trump, let me point out again that Trump has been a lifelong liberal Democrat, and gave substantial contributions to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2008, when she was running against Obama.

And, just as I warned he might do, he has already begun to walk back some of his more extreme position statements--now saying he would probably keep at least two parts of Obamacare--and like he told the editorial board of (I think it was The New York Times), his statements about building the wall are only "negotiating points."

So take heart, liberals Democrats. You may actually get the president you want. You may not have lost as badly as you thought.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Ron has proven a long time ago that not only does he not do this, but he thinks we're demons going to hell for disagreeing with him.
This is true. So that's an excellent argument for going to the second of my two proposed courses of action, to wit, shutting the f*ck up and ignoring him. Like I'm about to do with Samp.
Thanks in advance
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Man, I wish both sides would realize that they've got more common ground than not. When Trump claimed that the election was rigged, why disagree and condemn? Agree! You've got people suppressing votes, crazy redistricting, campaign debates leaking questions, and I wouldn't be surprised if it leaks that you have Russian hackers messing up insecure voting machines.

Why fight about insignificant voter fraud if there's even a chance that investigation will determine that there is significant voter fraud benefiting Republicans and you just have to backtrack?
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
Funny thing, Ron, if you back 25 or 30 years you can find Trump saying racist and prejudiced things. There's solid evidence that Trump held racist beliefs at one time. Beliefs which were not uncommon nor outrageous for that time. Whether or not he still holds them is harder to figure out but anyone saying he's never been prejudiced is selling you something.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Ron, I made a post and submitted it on May 30, 2016 01:26 PM, in response to your post on May 30, 2016 12:16 PM, because you never responded to my post on May 26, 2016 01:19 PM. I checked, you never throughout the remainder of that thread, ever once responded to my rebuttal, but you have repeatedly claimed you did, where is this rebuttal? Where is this post?

It does not exist, you keep lying, and this is why King of Men we do not give Ron Lambert the benefit of the doubt, because he lies about the most trivially fact checked things, like whether he actually responded to someone.

quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Man, I wish both sides would realize that they've got more common ground than not. When Trump claimed that the election was rigged, why disagree and condemn? Agree! You've got people suppressing votes, crazy redistricting, campaign debates leaking questions, and I wouldn't be surprised if it leaks that you have Russian hackers messing up insecure voting machines.

Why fight about insignificant voter fraud if there's even a chance that investigation will determine that there is significant voter fraud benefiting Republicans and you just have to backtrack?

But like Ron they pivot away and ignore inconvenient evidence and focus on mandating voter ID and closing all of the DMV's in majority minority districts; while stacking the FEC with people who will look the other way.

There is no engagement to be had; you have to hope they screw up majorly enough that when you get into power you can rewrite the rules so they can't do that anymore.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, I looked for those posts, which you said were in May, 2016. This thread only goes back to September 11, 2016.

If you posted anything anywhere in some other thread worth responding to, then I did. But I do not respond to things that are just too infantile and silly to be taken seriously. If that was the case, then that itself was my answer.

If you think I have to respond to anything and everything you post, then you have too high an estimation of yourself. Typical control freak liberal!
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Several of my friends on Facebook have told me someone has been sending them friend requests in my name--when we have already been friends for some time. I suspect it could be someone in this forum. After all, Samprimary actually resorted to "quoting" a fictitious post I never posted, saying it was something I posted. Someone in this forum not long ago asked for my email address. Of course I did not reply. But it would not surprise me if someone here really has been trying to cause trouble by sending people friend requests in my name. After all, liberal Democrats do seem to be sadly unconstrained by morality and ethics--which is why they are so ready to challenge responsible efforts at verifying voter identification--because that makes it harder for them to commit voter fraud.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Elison, I looked for those posts, which you said were in May, 2016. This thread only goes back to September 11, 2016.

If you posted anything anywhere in some other thread worth responding to, then I did. But I do not respond to things that are just too infantile and silly to be taken seriously. If that was the case, then that itself was my answer.

If you think I have to respond to anything and everything you post, then you have too high an estimation of yourself. Typical control freak liberal!

Ron, I have only ever been demanding of you to respond to the posts regarding the Germans "coming close to winning WWII"; if your response to this is indeed that you considered my response to have been "too infantile" to answer for; then you are quite frankly a liar, a coward and a fraud who runs away at the first sign of trouble.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
We underestimated the desire of people who didn't get what they wanted, either in the primaries or in life, to burn it all down. We thought that enough of us would choose reason and compassion. We were wrong.

I've heard this sentiment expressed in a few different places, particularly by Democrats (I want to say liberals, but it's used so often as a pejorative by conservatives that I hardly like to use it anymore, even when it's more accurate). I guess...I'm hoping that I can share my experience, briefly, with this election, as a conservative who didn't vote for Trump. Maybe I won't say anything that you all haven't already considered or expected, but I'd like to say it anyway because I want you all to understand why, even though I hated the idea of Trump as president, I also didn't vote for Clinton.

Going into this, we knew the Yellow Dog Republican/bigot/angry-and-uneducated trifecta was going to vote for Trump. Clinton was never going to get their votes, obviously. But I'm not sure the Democrats understood just how many of us Christian right-wingers were open to an option other than Trump. I belong to a large organization in Texas (a cooperative home school) that's made up of Christians from a wide variety of denominations, but we, as a group, watched in horror as Trump made his way through the primaries. I barely know any practicing Christians who support Trump; the conservatives I know who like him are either not Christian or nominal Christians.

But we believed, because most people believed, that the Democrats were going to take the Oval Office and the Senate. Just like Tom seems upset with the idea of an all-Republican government (and I don't blame him) we conservatives saw a likely path to a very Democrat-heavy Washington. In my mind, the best case scenario (of the ones given, which all sucked) would have been Clinton in the White House and a fresher Republican Senate, which might have led to more deadlock (maybe not) but wouldn't have equaled a runaway for Democrats. I was hoping for some temperance in the selection of Justices.

When it came time to vote, I stood there in the booth for several long minutes trying to decide what to do. But I believed Democrats would win the Senate and, in the end, I couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger on Clinton. Not because she's Democrat or a woman or a liar, but because I didn't feel connected to her or her party at all and I couldn't stand the idea of no check to that power.

But I don't think it had to go that way. I believe that some of us, the younger ones or the ones who lean a bit libertarian, the red-violets, could have been swayed to vote Democrat in this particular election, because we disliked Trump so much. But I'm not sure the Democrats really understood the potential there, maybe because we don't stir up a fuss or make ourselves known. I'm not a political scientist, so I can't say what I think the DNC should have done in this case. I don't know what policies or politicking could have been implemented in order to grab the disgusted conservative crowd. I only know that I didn't witness any real attempts, at least not here in the "red" south. I think many of us felt lumped in with Trump and alienated.

Anyway, I'm not trying to place blame anywhere, and I'm not trying to open myself up to attack. I'm just sharing my feelings because I'm frustrated, too, and I'm in the camp that I think many Democrats believe they can't relate to.

Even if the Democrats had won the senate, they were very unlikely to win the house anytime soon because of gerrymandering. I'm very curious what particular policies or consequences of "unchecked" democratic power you were so fearful of. Here's a list of things that were blocked by republicans during Obama's terms, including fighting outsourcing, adding infrastructure, and retraining workers. I'm also curious what you think of Trump's leadership so far.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Several of my friends on Facebook have told me someone has been sending them friend requests in my name--when we have already been friends for some time. I suspect it could be someone in this forum. After all, Samprimary actually resorted to "quoting" a fictitious post I never posted, saying it was something I posted. Someone in this forum not long ago asked for my email address. Of course I did not reply. But it would not surprise me if someone here really has been trying to cause trouble by sending people friend requests in my name. After all, liberal Democrats do seem to be sadly unconstrained by morality and ethics--which is why they are so ready to challenge responsible efforts at verifying voter identification--because that makes it harder for them to commit voter fraud.

Nope. That happens to lots of people. I get a couple of friend requests a week from people with whom I am already friends. You are not under some special Hatrackian persecution.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Several of my friends on Facebook have told me someone has been sending them friend requests in my name--when we have already been friends for some time. I suspect it could be someone in this forum. After all, Samprimary actually resorted to "quoting" a fictitious post I never posted, saying it was something I posted. Someone in this forum not long ago asked for my email address. Of course I did not reply. But it would not surprise me if someone here really has been trying to cause trouble by sending people friend requests in my name. After all, liberal Democrats do seem to be sadly unconstrained by morality and ethics--which is why they are so ready to challenge responsible efforts at verifying voter identification--because that makes it harder for them to commit voter fraud.

Nope, it's more likely your account was hacked, almost certainly by an email phishing attempt, or a website you accidentally visited. I've seen awful liberals have that same issue on Facebook.

As far as Samprimary "fictitiously quoting" you, I'm like 99.9999% sure he was applying satire, not actually trying to fabricate a quote to fool anyone.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
His fabricated "quote" would have been less lucid had he meant people to actually think you'd written it, Ron.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I can't wait to become Ron Lambert's latest inane conspiracy theory because he thinks I was creating an elaborate forgery of his posts clearly designed to accurately imitate him
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, it looks to me like I did give you amply sufficient answer to your false assertion of historical facts. All you or anyone else did in trying to oppose what I said amounted to no more than showing your ignorance. I spent several years wargaming WWII, especially the Russian Campaign, so I know what I am talking about.

Give me a list of specific things you say I got wrong when I said Germany came close to winning WWII, and I will refute you point by point.

I already mentioned a number of arbitrary choices Hitler made that hindered the German war effort unnecessarily--like his decision to stop using the Fliegerkorps after they had been misused in the Mediterranean theater. I also mentioned the choices he made to invade Russia without adequate preparation for the German troops to cope with winter weather if they did not succeed in conquering Russia before winter. I mentioned also that at one point, German units were in sight of the Kremlin, just before bad weather set in. I believe I also mentioned the judgment of qualified military historical analysts that Germany stopped its airborne attacks against England too soon so the bombers, fighters, and stukkas could be used against Russia--some have said that they had the British air force on the ropes, and if they had continued attacks against the British air force for only a few more days, they would have completely ended the effectiveness of the British air force. Do you recall any of these things? I did say them.

But if you have anything else specific to add, go ahead.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Samprimary, all you did was show your incompetence at creating a strawman. Your opinion of what I believe bears no resemblance to what I actually believe. Maybe you could communicate a little more intelligently if you would pay closer attention to what I actually say.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Your opinion of what I believe bears no resemblance to what I actually believe.
do you ... still not understand what i was doing
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
like did you end up concluding that i was trying to provide an accurate internal narrative of what ron lambert actually thinks

is this what you have deduced with your master detective skills
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
This was once a high quality thread
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
this is why King of Men we do not give Ron Lambert the benefit of the doubt
I'm not saying you should argue with him. Quite the opposite, I'm saying you should ignore him. But if you do argue, then you should not do so with the dogpiling ad homs displayed in this thread.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Sigh...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
To an extent I agree with KoM here. My opinion sides with yours on his opinions and posts, but the instant that he pops up people just get *aggressive.* Throwing in offensive drive by posts. Bringing up shit that he said months or even years ago.

We can all disagree with him, but I honestly feel that the way that he gets treated around here ultimately says more about us then it does about him.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I bring up the stuff I do from "months" ago because it's a clear cut case of my interactions with him where he is objectively wrong and him just being profoundly ignorant and he just not only cut and run, but lies and pretends he didn't; and is now lying about that and now claims it was merely because it was beneath his oh so vaunted dignity to have responded to what he considered to be posting intellectually inferior to his.

So yeah, I have zero reason to ever respond to him about what he says "now" because there is no reason to ever suppose that he will ever stop lying or accusing you of being demons; it's far more principled, and effective, to just bring it up again and again until he slinks away from the forums again.

quote:

We can all disagree with him, but I honestly feel that the way that he gets treated around here ultimately says more about us then it does about him.

You're suggesting we treat him as though he were mentally ill; in which case this would be simpler, we should just ban him until he seeks help.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Really? The mentally ill should be removed from political talking spaces? Does that sound particularly liberal to you, Elison?
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Elison, it looks to me like I did give you amply sufficient answer to your false assertion of historical facts.

No you didn't, I responded twice, in detail, to your baseless assertions.

quote:

All you or anyone else did in trying to oppose what I said amounted to no more than showing your ignorance. I spent several years wargaming WWII, especially the Russian Campaign, so I know what I am talking about.

What, the ever loving is this.

Um no, no amount of wargaming experience you personally claim would ever amount to being credible evidence. Wargaming for instance, tends to neglect logistics; a field of military operational art the Germans thoroughly neglected.

Like I am laughing at this notion that just because you've played Hearts of Iron 2 the one time that this would make you at all an expert.

I've actually spoken with Russian archivists and historian grad students whose main topic of research is the second world war and directly the debunking of the various myths that you've peddled; myths that I thoroughly discredited in my posts in that thread; I want you to read those posts, and actually respond to what I said.

Most importantly, the histiography of the second world war has moved remarkably in the last 16 years due to new evidence and documents found from recently opened Russian former Soviet archives; such as the complete discrediting of Wehrmacht kill ratios.

quote:

Give me a list of specific things you say I got wrong when I said Germany came close to winning WWII, and I will refute you point by point.

I did, I even gave you time stamps. My main updated response was at May 30, 2016 01:26 PM.

quote:


I already mentioned a number of arbitrary choices Hitler made that hindered the German war effort unnecessarily--like his decision to stop using the Fliegerkorps after they had been misused in the Mediterranean theater. I also mentioned the choices he made to invade Russia without adequate preparation for the German troops to cope with winter weather if they did not succeed in conquering Russia before winter. I mentioned also that at one point, German units were in sight of the Kremlin, just before bad weather set in.

This isn't true, German recon units got within 14 km of the Moscow suburbs; it's extremely doubtful they could've seen the Kremlin even with the use of visionary aids like binoculars.

You can look at any map and break out the rulers and do the math yourself

Also, the idea that the winter of was the most severe on the record is also a myth; but it's sufficient to say that if the Germans had actually been prepared for the Winter they likely would've been more competent in other matters, they weren't because if they WERE competent they wouldn't have been Nazi's.

Also the Soviets were tracking German orders for winter stocks for military purposes and is a major reason the German invasion was such a surprise, specifically because the Germans lacked winter provisions; and if they had made a major effort to prepare for the winter this would've resulted in tipping off the RKKA to their intentions in ways that would've convinced even Stalin.

You can't suppose and assert counter factuals in a vacuum and assume there are no other ramifications for what you suppose.

edit: I just realized you've claimed that the "bad weather" only occurred after the Germans got to Moscow; this is completely wrong. The mud season aka the "rasputitsa" occurred around October 7th, this massively slowed down the German advance, as did Soviet resistance in both the encircled pockets, partisan operations, and their increasingly effective and organized resistance during this time; aka Konstantin Rokossovsky did some of his best pre-Bagration work here saving Moscow; Guderian remarks in his memoirs that the Soviets were getting better organized, and better at fighting and reacting to them.

The worst of the cold was between November 30th and December 5th, not after as you are claiming.

Another thing to note is that by this time the Soviets had transfered 18 fresh divisions, 1,700 tanks, and had managed to build up 58 divisions in reserve by this time for the defence of Moscow prior to launching the 1942 Winter Counter Offencive.

The idea that the Germans could have taken Moscow is completely fictitious; the Soviets simply would've committed more troops to the defence instead of engaging in a massive large scale counter offensive across the whole front if that was even remotely possible; there's no evidence that more winter uniforms or an additional air corps or invading a couple of months early would have allowed the Germans to take Moscow.

quote:

I believe I also mentioned the judgment of qualified military historical analysts that Germany stopped its airborne attacks against England too soon so the bombers, fighters, and stukkas could be used against Russia--some have said that they had the British air force on the ropes, and if they had continued attacks against the British air force for only a few more days, they would have completely ended the effectiveness of the British air force. Do you recall any of these things? I did say them. [/qb]

I have already refuted this, plus you're not introducing a new argument you did not make before; you said nothing about transfering additional aeroplane formations to the east; but again, the logistics would've meant straining the German's supply lines even more; maybe if you played less video games you would know that you can't solve a military problem at the grand strategic level just by throwing more formations at the problem; mainly again, because of logistics.

Again see May 30, 2016 01:26 PM. Basically if the Battle of Britain was going as badly for Britain as you say, it's in the official record that strategically the RAF would've made certain moves as a result; but they didn't, ergo the situation is not as desperate as you claim.

At the end of the day though, you have provided no compelling narrative or historical evidence other than appeals to authority, that you leave nameless and without citation; that the Germans were close to "winning"; you fail to provide the necessary explanation as to how they could have succeeded.

[ November 17, 2016, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Really? The mentally ill should be removed from political talking spaces? Does that sound particularly liberal to you, Elison?

I'm pretty sure we've done it before. For their own good; and I think we've argued this point before that you do Ron a disservice by implying he is a child and shouldn't be held to the same standard as any other poster.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
No, we haven't done it before. We've done it in the past with, for example, Lisa who was blatantly racist. (Although I do miss her perspective.)

We've done it with *me,* when my mental illness was in full form and people were in disbelief when I revealed that the current me and my posts were from the same person as that previous me.

But you're ascribing mental illness to a person who sneers at your arguments and ignores your rebuttals.

I'm saying that even *if* that was a result of mental illness, that it's not deserving of a ban or conduct that falls outside the TOS. I'm saying that people who are mentally ill should still get to have their say.

People on the Internet are *allowed* to be wrong, no matter how much it annoys you.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I think you misunderstood my point, I'll let Sam respond.

Specifically,

quote:

But you're ascribing mental illness to a person who sneers at your arguments and ignores your rebuttals.

No I didn't.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
You wanna know what the problem is, here? Like, realtalk and with me making an effort to present it?

It is that people have essentially (out of inertia from Ron's literally over a decade of being a completely unfixably obdurate conspiracy theorist who blanket-condemns anyone who he sees as liberal) normalized ron's behavior to the extent that everyone's responses to ron become the only ever focal point of discussion about what people should or shouldn't be doing. Like ron's words are just some non-sapient meteorological event that are not accountable to anything.

That makes things expressly weird though, because just like with bean counter and malanthrop and reshpekobilgewater you cannot honestly expect people to simply not end up super done with treating him like a good faith participant in any contentious discussion, and then move straight to being the clutchers-of-pearl brigade over how people choose to respond to a poster who is strictly incapable of arguing in good faith.

If anyone here is sincerely worried about decorum, the way to make absolutely no progress is to skip past holding ron accountable for his tendency to move straight towards posting hot, aggressive, bigoted garbage all the time, and expect others to remain genteel and never have fun with it. You could remove me and multiple others entirely from the process and it would still happen.

The only action that will receive any dividends is if Ron is told that he cannot post hot, aggressive garbage in the first place. If he posts hot, aggressive garbage, any normative attempt to police the responses to it have already failed. "Don't Feed The Trolls," and all of its subcomponent truisms, hold the world internet record for most useless advice by volume ever.

*as a corollary point, nothing about this involves any sort of argument in favor of normalizing my behavior
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Dance all you want. You described him as mentally ill and implied that we should just shut him down for that. Leaving aside whether the mentally ill should or should not be shut up, your only apparent basis for him being mentally ill is that he doesn't respond to your posts in the manner you'd like, and that he is illogical.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
No, really. If he's that worthless and predictable, ****ing ignore him already. What, like the world reads Hatrack and the fate of the universe depends on proving him wrong?

Still saying the treatment of him says more about us then him.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
To reiterate, if someone is a hot bigoted garbage-poster, it's a complete non-starter to focus on that people respond to hot bigoted garbageposting.

An effort to stop the bad posts matter, an effort to tell people 'whoa, definitely don't say anything in response to all these really bad posts' will never in pretty much any community of humans succeed.

Like and it's not to have fun at your expense, heisenberg, but to sort of shine a light on the weird aftereffects of this normalization, I could paraphrase you to "the instant that Ron starts provoking people, people are provoked! what is up with that!"
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Dance all you want. You described him as mentally ill

No, I quite specifically did not. You however did, by suggesting it was in bad taste for us, through implication to be making fun of this person who so clearly in your view can't be expected of doing any better.

I was responding to your post by bringing it to it's logical conclusion. If Ron is not a mentally stable and mature enough individual to participate on these forums he should simply not be participating, period. It is up to you to decide whether he is or isn't, I was responding to your own implication.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
All things considered, I think that if the forum at large wants, I can switch it up and try the anti-ron part of it rather than just having fun with him
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I don't mind having more smart things to read.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
well it will certainly be officious and samey.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I find it interesting who is dying on this particular hill...the guy who openly mocked me after learning I was depressed.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
(Hint: his name rhymes w/ byesnberg)
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, it seems almost hopeless even trying to reason with you. But I will try to offer a few corrections to your assertions, on the off-chance that maybe your mind is not totally closed.

I just celebrated my 70th birthday. I have studied history for a long time, especially WWII. And my generation, be it noted, actually studied real history, not the watered down PC propaganda that passes for history these days. As for my wargaming experience, it was not merely a few games. I wargamed Milton Bradley's "The Russian Campaign" for several years, and at one point reached the top 50 list of those nationally ranked. At times I took the Russian side, and at times I took the German side. I usually won, with either side.

Anyone who has studied WWII who has more than two brain cells realize that the MOST OBVIOUS reason Germany lost was because of Hitler's stupid decisions at critical moments. (This in fact is why some of his generals conspired to try to assassinate him.) If he had just delayed Operation Barbarossa for a year, or at least not been so overconfident that he did not equip his troops with winter clothing, Germany's chances of winning would have been greatly increased.

Russia was extremely vulnerable at the start of Barbarossa, because Stalin had been lulled by the Nazi-Soviet Pact (where Germany and Russia promised not to attack each other, but divide up Europe together), so as a result the Russian forces were deployed along their border in attack formations--which are not good defensive positions. Thus the Germans with their Blitzkrieg attacks were able to surround and wipe out huge swaths of Russian forces, forcing them to surrender en mass. In at least 30% of the games I played as German, the Germans either took Moscow, or came close to it, in the first year. (Of course there is some debate as to just what would have forced Russia's war effort to collapse--but remember the Soviets were highly centralized in their command and control.) By the way, muddy weather slowed down the German advance, not just cold weather. Cold weather halved their combat capability, though. So winter really saved the Soviet Union. No one disputes that.

And if we look at hypotheticals, what real chance would the Russians or the Allies in general have had if not for the massive Lend-Lease supplies the USA shipped to Britain and to Moscow? And what if the Japanese had delayed a year or two in attacking Pearl Harbor, which is what gave Roosevelt the excuse to enter into the war against Germany?

Really, the close call Western Civilization had with WWII is so obvious, it seems unbelievable that anyone could be so uninformed as to even try to contend that Germany did not have a very good chance to win--if not for apparent Divine Intervention (or at least some very fortuitous timing), aided by the military incompetence of Hitler.

[ November 17, 2016, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
Wargames are not primary sources. The only thing they tell you about history is what someone else thinks about it. Worse, a wargame is a model of history, which necessarily introduces distortions as things are simplified. They also need to be enjoyable more than accurate.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
NobleHunter, the reason why Milton Bradley's The Russian Campaign was so popular among thousands of gamers is that it was so accurate, historically and technically. It gave you a realistic feeling for the tactical and strategic realities of the Eastern Front. The only drawback was that the game was so tedious to set up (the game was not computerized back then, and there were hundreds of game pieces), and took a long time to execute each turn or "impulse." (There were usually two impulses per month.) After a few years I finally got tired of all the time it was taking, and regretfully withdrew from competition, or I probably would have gone higher on the national ranking list.

When gaming by mail, we approximated die rolls by picking stocks for the following day, and then dividing the sales in hundreds by six, where zero equals six. Most of us preferred to go by the historical weather, though sometimes some of us would use the "die roll" to determine the weather. The drawback was that if the weather turned out to be dry and warm longer than was true historically, it was almost impossible for the Germans not to win. That's why most of us chose to go by the historical weather. Milton Bradley had some very clever ways of approximating the tactical and strategic realities.

One of my younger brothers liked to wargame another game that approximated the air war in Europe, and I played a few times with him--but I never liked it as well as The Russian Campaign, because the latter was so well thought out.

But I would add that wargaming was not my only source of knowledge of WWII. My father fought in WWII (he made it to the rank of top sergeant, and was a catcher in the Army All-Star baseball team before the war). And I found the subject of WWII interesting enough to read about it from historical sources. (My father was in the D-Day invasion of Normandy, though thankfully he was not in the first wave. He served in the motor pool, and sometimes chauffeured generals around. He was German by descent, but did not speak the language.)

The currently showing movie, Hacksaw Ridge, dramatizes the experience of the late Desmond T. Doss, a Seventh-day Adventist who became the first conscientious objector to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his bravery in lowering down 75 injured soldiers on a rope over a steep, high cliff, while under fire from the Japanese. My church is very proud of him--even though my personal decision was that if I were sent to Vietnam, I would have carried a gun, because I felt it is righteous to oppose the evil of communist dictatorship. God has a place for warriors like King David. As it turned out, though I was drafted, I was granted an exemption based on my medical history of childhood asthma and pneumonia. My only concern was that my decision to carry a gun might make it harder for other members of my church who wanted to be conscientious objectors like Desmond Doss. So I was glad I was not placed in that position.

I met Desmond Doss once, when he visited my church a few years ago, before his recent death. He was a slightly built man, very unpretentious. Still married to the same woman.

I remember reading an account given by a former Japanese soldier who said that he had Doss in his sights for many minutes, but had trouble pulling the trigger, and when he did, his gun would not fire. So you can make of that what you will. God certainly has a place for people who are definitely not warriors, but still have real faith and courage.

[ November 18, 2016, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

And my generation, be it noted, actually studied real history

Your generation literally did not have access to accurate records. The study, analysis, and recording of history is an evolving and ever changing process that takes into account new theories from new evidence, unearthed documents, new records, and so on; regarding WWII, the largest source of new documents is literal mountains of documents, communiques, letters and so on, from Soviet archives that were completely sealed and unavailable for the entirety of the Cold War. Here's a blog that translates and posts some


quote:

. I wargamed Milton Bradley's "The Russian Campaign" for several years, and at one point reached the top 50 list of those nationally ranked. At times I took the Russian side, and at times I took the German side. I usually won, with either side.

And this is completely irrelevant, because a board game from 1974 does not make you an expert at history, it does not give you more insight (Well it does, in conjunction with a good education and understanding, it can help provide a hollistic perspective, but here you're just using it as a cudgel and ignoring all evidence to the contrary), particularly because you go to no effort to actually explain your position; you just state it as fact and expect me to take your word for it.

A board game experience is not evidence, period. Especially since if you were playing against a comparable opponent in terms of skill then by your argument the Germans should have always won. Just think about that, think about how that actually undercuts your argument.


quote:

Anyone who has studied WWII who has more than two brain cells

Somehow you keep saying these incredibly sweeping statements and expect us to take you seriously. It's essentially you admitting "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me are idiots." You don't do anything to earn or deserve this arrogance.


quote:

MOST OBVIOUS reason Germany lost was because of Hitler's stupid decisions at critical moments. (This in fact is why some of his generals conspired to try to assassinate him.) If he had just delayed Operation Barbarossa for a year, or at least not been so overconfident that he did not equip his troops with winter clothing, Germany's chances of winning would have been greatly increased.

Nope, multiple times now I've refuted this.

1. Your argument basically comes down to "If Hitler wasn't Hitler"; well a LOT of things would've been different if Hitler wasn't Hitler. WWII might not have happened if Hitler wasn't Hitler; You might as well posit that Germany would've won the war if Hitler were gay or black or rode a Polish cavalry bear into battle.

2. If the Germans had procured the necessary winter provisions you forget that this was something the Soviet intelligence services were specifically looking at for and would've provided additional early warning for the Soviets to procure munitions and fuel to front line units and to disperse the Red Air Force. Even 48 hours notice would've made a critical difference here; contrast the Red Army's and Red Air Force's prepardness for war with the Red Fleet; the Soviet Navy in the Baltic and Black Seas were highly prepared and anticipated attack and came out of the opening days and air attacks of Barbarossa almost entirely unharmed. A majority of the Red Air Force was destroyed on the ground, had they dispersed and been prepared that would've made German air supremacy in the opening weeks impossible and the German panzer encirclements much difficult and slower; recall that a crucial tank battle in the Baltic States, the Soviets were forced from their positions because of dive bomber attacks.

3. Delaying Barbarossa for a year was impossible. The result would've been a massively better prepared Red Army, that was larger, better trained, and had more T-34's. An additional 500,000 to 1,000,000 soldiers in the Red Army, plus additional heavy equipment would've made the Wehrmacht's ability to defeat them improbable and sooner. It's doubtful the Germans even reach Smolensk.

4. Germany wasn't defeated because of a OBVIOUS reasons such as Losing X Battles; but because they were in a battle of attrition against superior enemy forces who made less mistakes in the long run. Germany's early victories set them up for critical failure.

quote:

forcing them to surrender en mass.

Actually the pockets took weeks, if not months to subdue; this why the Germans were ultimately doomed to failure; because each time they had to stop their advance in order to refit, resupply, and rearm the Panzer divisions while waiting for the infantry to advance, gave the Soviets time to bring up reserves and form new defencive lines closer to their supplies while the German logistical tether got longer; with less horses, carts, and trucks in which to bring forward those supplies.

By Dec 5th the Germans had lost a majority of their horses, carts and trucks and this was completely irreplaceable.

quote:

In at least 30% of the games I played as German, the Germans either took Moscow, or came close to it, in the first year. (Of course there is some debate as to just what would have forced Russia's war effort to collapse--but remember the Soviets were highly centralized in their command and control.)

This doesn't mean anything, they simply would've relocated further East, well outside the range of German bombers or land forces; taking Moscow likely would've doomed the Germans in 1942 instead of 1945 because the effort to take it would've made them vulnerable to the Soviet counter offencive; again your war gaming experience neglects the actual strategic situation, if you had read a history book published recently you would likely know this.

quote:

By the way, muddy weather slowed down the German advance, not just cold weather. Cold weather halved their combat capability, though. So winter really saved the Soviet Union. No one disputes that.

Actually lots of people dispute this; because the worst of the weather was between November 30th and December 5th; the Soviet counter attacks were from December 5th onwards; the attrition the Germans took was from october to november; you do not address this.

quote:

And if we look at hypotheticals, what real chance would the Russians or the Allies in general have had if not for the massive Lend-Lease supplies the USA shipped to Britain and to Moscow?

No one disputes that Lend-Lease was important, in fact Lend-Lease further refutes your overall and original claim that the Germans were "close" to winning; they were never close to winning.

quote:

And what if the Japanese had delayed a year or two in attacking Pearl Harbor, which is what gave Roosevelt the excuse to enter into the war against Germany?

You know the US sent Lend-Lease to the USSR before December 1941 yes? And that the US did not open a Second Front against the Germans until 1943?

quote:

Really, the close call Western Civilization had with WWII is so obvious

No it wasn't. The Germans were never close to winning the war; as I have no refuted multiple times. The Germans could not have taken Moscow; even if they did it would've been such a colossal overextension of their lines and logistics that the 1942 Winter Counter Offencive might have actually have shattered the Wehrmacht for Realz instead of the almost that actually happened.

quote:

it seems unbelievable that anyone could be so uninformed as to even try to contend that Germany did not have a very good chance to win--if not for apparent Divine Intervention (or at least some very fortuitous timing), aided by the military incompetence of Hitler.

I am obviously far better informed than you, you're like a Doctor that thinks leeches are good for your humours.

I love the arrogance and comedically uninformed condescension from your posting.

I'll repeat it again; introducing massive counter factuals to WWII does not make it good histiography; far better and more qualified historians and military professionals than you have already done so and concluded the opposite; the outcome was never in doubt.

quote:

NobleHunter, the reason why Milton Bradley's The Russian Campaign was so popular among thousands of gamers is that it was so accurate, historically and technically. It gave you a realistic feeling for the tactical and strategic realities of the Eastern Front. The only drawback was that the game was so tedious to set up (the game was not computerized back then, and there were hundreds of game pieces), and took a long time to execute each turn or "impulse." (There were usually two impulses per month.) After a few years I finally got tired of all the time it was taking, and regretfully withdrew from competition, or I probably would have gone higher on the national ranking list.

No military simulation; no matter how detailed, could possible accurately reflect all of the total complexity and realities of the war. And does not constitute a valid argument in support of your position; it's a complete non-sequitor.

To summarize;

"Hitler would have won if he wasn't Hitler", and other generalized counterfactuals like "delaying the war by a year" introduce so many potential "butterflies" that you might as well ask for a gay black Jewish Hitler. Because History, does not work in a vacuum; if the Germans delayed by a year the variables regarding Soviet preparedness and their relative strength would have certainly also changed drastically.

Taking Moscow also would not have ended the war; because again, you had something over 60 Soviet divisions built up for the Winter Counter Offensive that nearly shattered the Wehrmacht. 18 Divisions from the Far East and 60 Reserve divisions built up for Moscow; plus other divisions elsewhere that likely would've been deployed by STAVKA to the Moscow Front had the Germans inched closer.

Taking Moscow meant these forces would've been either committed to the city's defence early, in which case the Germans would've had Stalingrad happen to them at Moscow instead.

Introducing more winter uniforms and other provisions would not have prevented the sheer attrition and logistical difficulties they experienced in Barbarossa and Typhoon; in fact additional equipment might have just made it worse; as well would have additional air corps deployed to the East. This attrition was most notably between October and November, before the first snows.

Here, posted by Jobbo_Fett from SA, from Robert Kirchubel's "Atlas of the Eastern Front":

quote:

According to the book, the Germans had nearly 2 million men (78 Divisions), 14000 mortars and artillery pieces, 1000 tanks, and 1390 aircraft. The Russians had over 1.25 million men (95 divisions, 13 tank brigades), 7600 indirect fire weapons, 990 tanks, and 863 planes. (Edit: At the start of operation Typhoon)

Guderian attacked first, between Novgorod Seversky and Kursk and made some good initial gains, mainly because STAVKA wasn't sure what to make of his independent movement/attack. Two days after Guderian's attacks, the rest of Heeresgruppe Mitte joined the advance.

He notes a critical logistic problem for the Germans, which hampered their ability to take (or hold) ground. But the Russians were also suffering problems of their own in the form of massive losses. Between 30 Sept and 15 Oct they lost almost 2 million casualties (1.3 million captured, the rest dying in battle).

3.PanzerGruppe and 4.PanzerGruppe were the closest to Moscow, with 2.Panzer-Division being the closest German unit to Moscow. They had almost reached Lobnya, which is about 27 kilometers from Moscow.

Things settled down from there, before German fortune started reversing. During the month of November, the Germans began the month with 2.7 million men and received no notable reinforcements, whereas the Russians started with 2.2 million men and added another 2 million by the end of the month.

Kirchubel notes that the Nazis had 4 main problems: Troop Exhaustion, Personnel+Materiel Attrition, Anaemic Logistics, and Lack of Direction/Attainable Goals.

Kirchubel's criticizes Von Kluge (who wasn't the commander of Heeresgruppe Mitte at the time of Operation Typhoon) as a plodding, unimaginative general. In fact, he's talked about Von Kluge's ineptitude twice in just a few pages.

The Soviets had reinforced the Moscow Front with over 2 million men, you're not explaining how the Germans manage to overcome these reinforcements that were in reserve.

From poster Disintered from SA, his source is Operation Typhoon: Hitler’s March On Moscow, October 1941, written in 2013 by David Stahel.

quote:

There are probably three main themes the book really hits on consistently:

1) The Germans were totally unprepared for the reality of the conflict they would be fighting
2) The Germans were borrowing all the time from their own future, with reckless abandon
3) Huge problems, such as an overwhelming focus on the operational rather than the strategic level, distrust amongst high level commanders, and a strange flow of information prevented the Germans from learning well enough to deal with these problems.

So that the overall picture you get is that the German defeat is all the time being sewn in the manner and shape even of their biggest victories.

Big take-aways re: those themes.

1) Unprepared for reality.

We all know German intel re: the USSR was a joke. Canaris was regarded as a useless nepotist. But he wasn’t any worse than his precedessors, and indeed the French and Poles were just as bad at infiltrating the USSR. This was compounded by the fact that Jodl, who was head of the operational department, told Canaris not to bother with infiltrating deep in to the USSR or with getting information on the Red Army. As a result, once the border moved rapidly eastward, his agents became redundant, and it became even harder for him to place new ones because (a) the Germans were bad at it and kept producing agents with fake papers (b) the NKVD good at stopping them but was ridiculously over the top about the threat of infiltrators and summarily executed 10’s of thousands of Russians fleeing eastward to prevent it.

The Wehrmacht’s own head of intelligence, Col Eberhard Kinzel (later a highly decorated commander ominously replaced by Reinhard Gehlen), was appointed despite having no intelligence training, not speaking Russian, and not knowing the USSR. His primary source was radio intercepts of Russian forces. This made his efforts range limited, but also limited by the relative scarcity of radios compared to Germany. As a result he gave his commanders a fairly good picture of the frontline units for Barbarossa forward but painted no picture at all of the reserves at the USSR’s disposal, which, obviously, were vast. This is probably one reason that the Germans kept on assuming that, in vast encirclements, they had destroyed ‘the last good units’ the USSR had, and everything left would be rabble.

Moreover, although a lot of the commanders who fought in Typhoon professed to have been well versed in the classics, and to have read about Napoleon’s 1812 campaign in particular, it seems to have emerged that most of them were lying – many only began to read furiously after problems had already presented themselves. Most had absolutely no clue about the type of logistical, terrain and weather challenges that would be present in Russia; almost all of them consistently expected a snap victory after their initial operational successes, and their frames of reference were as bizarre as Konnigratz.

This naturally fed in to logistics problems. Sometimes a problem was anticipated, but only halfway: the Germans knew the Soviet rail gauge was higher, so they had teams dedicated to relaying the track for German locomotives. They didn’t factor that the larger Soviet locomotives on that gauge could pull more weight twice as far, meaning the existing halts the Soviets had for coaling + water were twice as far apart as German ones, and new ones could not be built quickly. Almost all the panzer and motorised units could not repair their own vehicles and frequently abandoned their vehicles to preserve their pool of fuel in order to continue offensive operations. By late October the 600,000 trucks that the Germans had for Typhoon was reduced to approximately 70,000, and the number of horses declined similarly. Horses are another good example: German draught horses are larger than Soviet draught horses. Resultantly, when they died, the Soviet captures couldn’t replace them for some of their most important duties of moving guns and heavy equipment; and, meanwhile, the mud multiplied the number of horses needed to move a gun, so that Bock himself personally records seeing 18 draught horses being needed to move a single gun. Everyone just had no idea what to expect, and the resulting logistics problems essentially demechanised the Wehrmacht irreperably – Stahel talks about a process of ‘demotorisation’. The same effect, mutatis mutandis, applies also to the outstanding professionalism of the army.

There’s a lot more said about 1), in terms of specifics.

As for 2) ‘borrowing from the future’ - to begin with, Germany in October of 1941 was already fielding over 80% of all of its prime male youth in its army. Production was strongly effected and they simply could not be replaced if they became casualties: the German replacement army before Typhoon consisted of only 350,000 or so men, or just over half of the German losses in the operation.

The operation also massed the single largest force ever under one commander, with 1.9 million men under Bock, and approx 1,500 tanks and 1000 aircraft. Yet the tanks (and aforementioned trucks and horses) were irreparably wasted away by Typhoon. From October-December, 1,229 tanks were lost while in the same period a little more than 1,000 were constructed in total (and for that time, that number was not increasing; indeed, Hitler had planned to cancel new Ostheer orders for replacement vehicles after approximately January/February 1942 and to focus on other priorities like ship construction). A large number of crack panzer divisions reported by the end of October as having low double-digit numbers of tanks left in their divisions. Moreover, their strength was dissipated: because of immediate operational success, Hitler insisted the Panzer forces continue to roll the front back on a wider and wider basis, preventing their effective concentration; moreover, because they had already outpaced the infantry to create the two big pockets at Viaz’ma and Briansk, they wound up having to split their strength to keep the pockets somewhat closed to the east. And, ever outpacing supply, they kept gaining ground while hemorrhaging the bulk of their vehicles to keep enough fuel and parts to remain moving. A single division was described by one commander, on seeing it, as being little more than ‘a strengthened armoured reconnaisance regiment’ by late October.

Yet, even though the strategic aim was to achieve a sudden victory and cessation of hostilities by the swift capture of Moscow and the shattering of remaining regular red army units, in actuality this was only sometimes reflected in planning. For example, Hitler withheld a large number of replacement tanks from the front in order to preserve them for future operations at an unspecified later date. Once early operational success was achieved, Hitler (and a number of his commanders) then drew up increasingly fanciful plans for his units (such as directing one of his Panzer units 200km north to Yaroslavl when it was notionally supposed to capture Moscow) before the units could consolidate the gains they had only just taken. The OKW/OKH were both utterly terrible at stopping this: it’s clear Halder in particular had basically just decided he was just going to forward orders from Hitler and wash his hands of them. On one occasion, however, Bock did outright refuse to retask Guderian’s Panzer ‘army’ in its offensive to take Tula and sent heated telegrams expressly refusing to pass on Hitler’s direct order, because it was total madness. He instructed Halder that Hitler could pass the order on to the army commanders directly if he wanted it done. This only, later, created further mistrust between Hitler and his field commanders, even though Bock won out on this occasion. Hitler would later insist Kluge come to him from the front to tell him the truth about whether conditions were as bad as written reports suggested, or if the army was being insufficiently wilful and sandbagging. Bock wryly noted: ‘He probably refused to believe the written reports, which is not surprising, for anyone who has not seen this filth doesn’t’ think it’s possible’.

Having thrown the Javelin as far as they could they still didn’t get close to Moscow, and the idea they were even close to investing it was fanciful – the units closest to it were utterly depleted. Instead, shattered units were sitting with no winter clothing and quarters in a desperate situation. Even in October the chief Quartermasters of the Wehrmacht were not just refusing requests for winter equipment but sending demands back to Bock that he stop his commanders sending new ones because making logistical plans for the future indicated you were insufficiently zealous about achieving a victory any day soon.

3) Terrible positive feedback loops.

Focus on operational success over strategic factors is a big one. The German command from top to bottom is overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of its tactical victories to the point that they keep on not realizing their operations haven’t achieved the desired tactical outcomes. To the Germans, the fact that they destroy almost all of the Soviet 1.2 million men on the Moscow front in October in pockets at Briansk and Viaz’ma makes them blind to the fact that the time and resources closing those pockets is consuming isn’t just costing them time to get to Moscow before winter but buying Zhukov and Konev time to reinforce and prepare the defence of the city proper. Vasilevsky says:

‘In appraising the outcome of the events in October it should be said that it was very unfavourable to us. The Soviet army had suffered severe losses. The enemy had advanced nearly 100 miles. But the aims of Operation Typhoon had not been achieved. One of Bock’s groupings had become hopelessly bogged down near Tula, another beyond Mozhaisk, and yet another in the upper reaches of the Volga [Kalinin]. The stauncheness and courage of the defenders of the Soviet capital stopped the Nazi hordes.’

Meanwhile, the victories also encourage triumphalism at home. Goebbels and Hitler indicate to the German public the war’s outcome has been determined by the collapse of the aforementioned pockets, which the German people believe to indicate the war is won in all but formality. When this turns out not to be so, it is a giant and unrecoverable loss of face for the Nazi part from which it does not recover (this is when listening to British radio suddenly spikes), particularly since the letters home all indicate that the war is extremely hard even when they are optimistic, as many are.

What’s more, Goebbels seems to be the person in Germany with the best grip on the difficulties of the eastern front, but it doesn’t translate in to his propaganda, for obvious reasons. But not even Hitler seems to grasp that Goebbels is gambling by presenting such an optimistic picture – there’s a suggestion here by Stahel that Goebbels widely optimistic accounts of progress in the east are actually being believed as entirely true even by high ranking figures in the German government and command, further encouraging all of the people who should be treating the logistical challenges of the front as an emergency to take it rather lightly.

And, the thing is, all of these issues of logistics – if not weather – had been thoroughly exposed by Barbarossa, and nobody had made a major issue of them yet either – because everything was such a big operational success.

Wedded to the operational obsession was also an offensive obsession: ‘the notion of calling a halt ran contrary to everything this officer corps believed: the importance of will and aggression, and especially the importance of finishing a war in a single campaign.’ This is especially a Panzer commander problem: they’re always being accused of wanting to start new fights before the old ones are finished, while infantry commanders (and von Kluge) complain. Even in late October, with the panzer troops more or less flaming wreckage, Bock and others are still mostly asking for a pause in operations until the ground freezes in November, rather than prepping static positions and trying to find winter quarters.

There were other associated psychological phenomena, particularly this concept of ‘will’: people who complained too much about logistical issues or the need for their men to rest for coming fighting were regarded as defeatist (inasmuch as victory was assumed to be imminent) and also insufficiently lacking the will to victory: ‘will’ is taken to be capable of overcoming any obstacle or difficulty, and people who grumbled about difficulties or realities on the ground were regarded as lacking this crucial quality.

Basically the Germans were screwed once they stepped into Russia.

They made countless mistakes at all levels, tactical, operational, and strategic; that it is laughable that pushing the front another 100 miles would have ended the war in their favour, or that they just somehow wouldn't have also made worse mistakes if they delayed a year? Get real.

This all goes back to what I initially stated; the German victories were basically the gaming equivalent of them getting lucky and rolling Natural 20's early in the war and assuming via Gambler's Fallacy that they would keep rolling 20's and were completely unprepared for when they finally rolled a 1. At a point where even rolling a 19 would've still resulted in failure.

And you're wargaming simply cannot account for the real difficulties the Germans were facing, or the attrition that they had accumulated.

The standard you are using is not a reasonable one; one that the entire German war effort during WWII not make a single mistake ever while also insisting that the Allies likewise keep making mistakes; that's insanity and beyond unrealistic.

[ November 18, 2016, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Ah yes, the 'God has a place' for heroes such as Desmond Doss (a fair term for the man really). Which, alright, I do suppose that's nice and all but what isn't so nice is salesmanship of it. Because not unlike an athlete thanking god for scoring a goal, saying that God has a place for war heroes whether themselves violent and warlike or not is nice enough I suppose, but it leaves off the part where that place God has for men such as Doss comes at the expense of tens of millions of dead, many in lingering agony, and scores of millions more later born under tyrannies who would live out their lives in opppression.

It's convenient that the approach of politicized religion such as yours so often is 'god has a place' for someone who embodies an affirming story. But for the hundreds or thousands of others who die to make the ink for that story, so to speak, 'God works in mysterious ways' or 'man has agency and sometimes that means you're minding your own business and then die in agony or your kids are born into hopeless, grinding poverty'.

Pick one, goddamnit. You don't get to claim the good stuff and then shrug your shoulders and be opaque at the cost. Even at the remove of generations, you don't get to just avert your eyes from the cost in service to rhetoric.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
AND THERES MORE (Also Mr. Disinterested, from the same book):

quote:

Relative Strength of Panzer troops June-October

Bock's 8 Panzer divisions on the 22nd of June totalled 1,530 tanks. On October 2nd he had a little more than this to use for Typhoon, despite having the greatest concentration of Panzer Units any German commander would have in the war. Where did those numbers come from?

Firstly, between June and October, however, Bock was assigned Hoepner's panzer group (the 4th) and 4 more Panzer Divisions in addition to his 8 panzer divisions under Hoth and Guderian, making 12. However, almost all the reinforced strength came from new production and 2 specific Divisions, the 2nd and 5th Panzer Divisions: as a result, 12 of Bock's Panzer Divisions contributed only half of the total number of tanks involved in operation Typhoon. And of the ones that he had rolled through from his original 8 panzer divisions, a number of tanks were only in a provisional state of repair.

If the strength of the 12 veteran Panzer divisions Bock had on October 2nd [the 8+4 new ones] is tracked from 22nd of June to 4 October the divisional strength had been reduced by 70%, from 2,476 to 750 tanks. Colonel Walther Charles De Beaulieu, the chief of staff of Panzer Group 4, noted that at the end of September: ‘what one referred to as a “division” was actually only half of a division”. Meanwhile, the shiny new divisions, the 5th and the 2nd, brought 450 tanks each.

Hitler was also terrible about reinforcing these depleted units. For Typhoon he released 300 tanks out of a production total of over 800 between Barbarossa and Typhoon, amounting to: 60 38(t)'s, 150 mk III's, 96 mk IV's, averaging out to only 25 new tanks per division. Hitler was so assured of victory though that the navy and airforce gained a greater share of production between July and December 1941: overall production of army weapons fell 29% in that period.

Tracking The Losses in Barbarossa

Hoth's 3rd Panzer Group is a good example. His 7th division after the first week of Barbarossa had lost 50% of it's Mk. II's and III's and 75% of it's Mk. IV's, more than half to logistical issues and breakdown rather than enemy action. Though, where Soviet forces could be used adequately, they were also devastating: Model's 3rd Division lost 22 tanks in a single action stemming from an ambush, to Soviet tank fire, in Zhoblin on July 6th.

Taking the Panzer groups as a whole by September 7th:

Guderian had 5 Panzer Divisions with 256 tanks, down from 904 on 22 June.
Hoth had 280 tanks, down from 707.
Hoepner had 250 tanks down from 626.

These were the formations whose only internal reinforcement of tanks was the aforementioned 300 (or 25 per division).

Not Just Tanks

To put those tank losses in the perspective of human loss, Guderian's 'panzer group' (around this time it becomes an army, and is swollen) had also lost 32,000 men as casualties.

The infantry often had it worse, since they were isolated and mobile support to assist them in defensive battles was minimal, so ever smaller units kept holding the same positions. Blumentritt wrote in this period:

‘In modern warfare infantry requires armoured support not only in the attack but also on the defense. When I say our lines were thin, this is not an understatement. Divisions were assigned sectors almost twenty miles wide, Furthermore, in view of the heavy casualties already suffered in the course of the campaign, these divisions were usually under strength and tactical reserves were non-existent’.

One idea of how bad it could be is the fighting at Yel'nya between 18th August - 5th September, where the 137th Infantry division lost 2,000 men in a defensive battle; the 263rd, in just one week of that fighting, lost 1,200. Kluge's army as a whole lost 38,00 men, Stauss 48,000; by 26 September the total casualties for Barbarossa across all army groups were 534,000, 15% of the initial force - while only 385,000 were in the replacement army. This is substantial when you consider that 85% of German men aged 20-30 were already in the Wehrmacht, whereas in July-August 1941 the Soviet Union added 27 new field armies to its total strength.

This attrition was a factor in the air war: Kesselring, who was the lead aerial commander for Typhoon with army group centre, was reduced from 1,200 to 1,000 aircraft despite replacements. Between 22 June and 12 July 550 German planes were destroyed and 336 were damaged, and the planes were moving away from good, secure bases in German territory to damaged or shoddy bases in Soviet territory.

In trucks, as already mentioned, this attrition was also a huge problem. There were 600,000 trucks available on June 22 for Barbarossa, largely within the 4 panzer groups. By late September, Panzer Group 2 reported a loss of 30-40% of all its wheeled transport. Exact numbers aren't available for all units, but if you can extrapolate from those losses elsewhere that's a loss of between 180,000 to 240,000 vehicles before Typhoon and before the Russian rain and cold had even started*. How many did Hitler release to the front when he ordered the release of 300 new tanks? 3,500. Barbarossa had begun a demotorisation of the German army that would only continue in to Typhoon.

You get the sense about the campaigns of 1941 as a whole that the Germans had thrust a brittle weapon in to the Soviet Union's gut only to have it snap off at the hilt.

Dun dun dun.

*Told You.

Notice Ron, that now I have found sources for you, that have done research from primary sources form both German and Soviet records that paint a desperate and bleak picture of the German army. You have not done so; there is no indication that the Germans were in any position to take Moscow.

Also note, that the book in general, is published in 2013; now extrapolate and imagine just how much of your knowledge, mostly it seems from a board game published in 1974 and history books from probably before that; is out of date.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, I reject everything you say as untrue and proof of not only being ignorant, but of having unsound judgment. You pretend to quote from what you regard as historically "authoritative," but your sources are in fact unreliable and unsound. The authors whom you quote were just the kind of liberal scholar wannabes who try to make a name for themselves by seizing on any excuse to go against the established wisdom. It is sadly apparent that your teachers never taught you how to think critically and properly weigh evidence for yourself. You can only go by what someone else says, and you select only those who agree with you. You may claim you have refuted me a thousand times, and it will still not be true. I have given you sufficient evidence for you to see that your contention that the Germans never came close to winning WWII is absolutely stupid and contrary to what every really intelligent and informed person knows. (And historical sources do verify that advance units of the German army did reach the point where they could see the domes of the Kremlin.) You are a pitiable example of how irresponsible liberal teachers and authors can victimize students. I have tried to explain to you why what I said was reasonable and borne out by the real facts of history. But to you it is all just a matter of childish ego. You seem incapable of engaging in mature debate. It is all just a game to you. You do not seem to care about what is real and true. That is what is wrong with all liberals.

You liberals pretend you are righteous. But it is you liberals who are rioting in the streets, looting, burning police cars, parading around with signs that say, "Not Our President." Conservatives never did anything like that when Obama was elected.

You liberals preach tolerance of others' viewpoints--but you present irrational and unreliable and pretentious assertions in the place of logical arguments, and resort to insult and derision when better minds counter you with better arguments. It is you liberals who pull people out of cars and beat them bloody on the mistaken notion that they voted for Trump. Frankly, if you do not wise up, then you should turn in your birth certificates, and resign from the human race.

I suspect that some of you here in this forum are beginning to become aware of the actual intolerance and extremism and hypocrisy of liberal partisans, as they have expressed themselves here, and you are feeling ashamed of it. May I challenge you to study for yourself from wider sources, not just your comfortable, favorite liberal sources. Do watch Fox News Channel, not just MSNBC and PBS. Find out what the other side says--in their own words--don't just blindly accept what liberal propagandists say about conservatives. You might yet someday become wise. I will tell you honestly, right now you are not.

[ November 18, 2016, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I kno thread drift is a thing and all...but y'all might want to start a WWII thread

ETA...I wrote this before seeing Ron's response...now I'd say why bother

[ November 18, 2016, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
In the interest of not giving a wrong impression, I will just mention that Ron is not arguing, he is asserting; and that drawing historical conclusions from a wargame necessarily designed for balance is not "careful reasoning and logic", it is laughable. The immediate segue into "lib'rals are awful and uneducated", without even an attempt at refuting Blayne's wall of text other than "I reject this as ignorant and proof of unsound judgement", reads almost like deliberate self-parody.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Ron doesn't do deliberate self parody...just ironic self parody
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
What, the Germans didn't actually lose 530,000 trucks by November 1941 and didn't lose 80% of their tank strength or did that not happen in your "wargames" and thus didn't happen in real life in your mind?

Hey look, lemme hop into my TARDIS and fetch someone for you, hey look, he wrote you a message, lemme relay it to you through my LIBERAL TIME MACHINE POWERS:

quote:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)

Love, St. Augustine. WHO WAS TOTALLY BLACK GAY HITLER WOAH.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
King of Men, Elison's "wall of text" is no more than a berm made of sand.

Stone_Wolf_, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion in another thread. But you are right that Elison's ridiculous attack on my innocent statement that the Germans came close to winning WWII is a diversion of the thread topic, for really no good reason. Just his personal prejudice.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
In the interest of not giving a wrong impression, I will just mention that Ron is not arguing, he is asserting; and that drawing historical conclusions from a wargame necessarily designed for balance is not "careful reasoning and logic", it is laughable. The immediate segue into "lib'rals are awful and uneducated", without even an attempt at refuting Blayne's wall of text other than "I reject this as ignorant and proof of unsound judgement", reads almost like deliberate self-parody.

I just wanna point out that for you own practice for our Hoi4 game part of that wall of text contains really cool and interesting tid bits about the logistics of the Wehrmacht that is probably applicible given Hoi4's logistics system. Seriously it's cool stuff, I personally did not realize the scope of how screwed the Germans were even in 1941.

The general idea, that the Germans were losing the war because they couldn't take Moscow in time or didn't take Stalingrad, or because of a split focus or whatever, is all basically false; the Germans were screwed from the get go and had a catastrophe waiting above their heads ready to fall and crush them at any moment.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
King of Men, Elison's "wall of text" is no more than a berm made of sand.

Stone_Wolf_, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion in another thread. But you are right that Elison's ridiculous attack on my innocent statement that the Germans came close to winning WWII is a diversion of the thread topic, for really no good reason. Just his personal prejudice.

You could you know, actually attempt to prove me wrong by actually taking my counter arguments at face value and refuting them bit by bit. I am open to changing my mind if you can provide a logically well reasoned argument supported by facts; after all, St. Augustine says you should do so and to knock it off and to stop making a fool of Christianity.

Why won't you listen to St. Augustine? I went to the effort to time travel to meet him and he's a really cool guy (Even though he might also be Hitler).
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

It is all just a game to you

quote:

I spent several years wargaming WWII, especially the Russian Campaign, so I know what I am talking about.

Hrm.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
One last time, because it is so obvious. Elison, can you answer the questions WHY the Germans "were screwed" and exactly what caused the "catastrophe waiting above their heads"?

What if Hitler had continued the air attack against the Royal Air Force for another couple of weeks?

What if Hitler had continued to use the Fliegerkorps against the Allies after the one bad experience in the Mediterranean, and perhaps had landed paratroops in England--perhaps following it up with their planned "Operation Sea Lion"?

What if Hitler had had better sense when he decided to launch Operation Barbarossa, and included cold weather clothing and supplies with his troops?

What if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor when it did, or at least waited a year, or even a few months--so the USA would not have entered the war as soon as it did?

Are you capable of understanding how to evaluate such hypothetical situations honestly, and what they really mean? Yes, the Germans lost because they screwed themselves (mainly Hitler did), but if they had not screwed themselves, they would have won. Right? Do you get it?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
By the way, Elison, one more thing. You brought up Augustine in one of your snarky remarks. Apparently you think I should regard him as a spiritual authority. As a Protestant who knows church history, I am not high in my regard for Augustine, and do not believe he should be called a saint. It was his idea of the Roman church being obliged to use force to compel acceptance of its authority and teachings, as set forth in his book, The City of God, which Protestant scholars credit with being primarily responsible for the creation of the Inquisition. So well-meaning as Augustine might have been, he helped create one of the greatest evils in human history. Millions of martyrs were killed because of him--most of them because they believed in sound Biblical teachings that happened to contradict the pagan corruptions that had come into the Roman church; and the Protestant Reformation and long-lasting wars in Europe were required to break the persecuting power the Papacy had grown into, which resulted from his doctrine.

[ November 18, 2016, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Ron, the way you went off on Ellison is inappropriate and reflects poorly on you
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I stand by what I said. It is the absolute truth. Elison is unwise and needs to grow up. So do all you intolerant, persecuting liberals.

And remember, Ellison started this whole thread diversion when he attacked my innocent statement that the Germans had come close to winning WWII, an utterly stupid thing for him to do.

Now, if someone were to say that the Germans did not have a chance to win because God was against them, then with that I would have to agree.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Do I have a splinter in my eye Ron?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
So do all you intolerant, persecuting liberals.
And our little dogs, too!
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Tom, I am a cat person myself. [Smile]

I saw a cute picture on Facebook--it showed two little "ankle-biters" behind a fence, and on the fence was a sign that said: "Warning: Death from the Ankles Down!"
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

What if Hitler had continued the air attack against the Royal Air Force for another couple of weeks?

They would have exhausted more of their planes and pilots who wouldn't have been able to fight in the East; the RAF would have relocated bases further north out of the maximum combat radius of the Bf-109. The RAF again, frequently held the sky after the majority of engagements with the Luftwaffe and were losing less pilots and planes than the Germans, the rate of attrition favoured the RAF; it was the Germans, not the RAF, that was running out of time.

quote:

What if Hitler had continued to use the Fliegerkorps against the Allies after the one bad experience in the Mediterranean, and perhaps had landed paratroops in England--perhaps following it up with their planned "Operation Sea Lion"?

The overwhelming literature about Operation Seelöwe was such a organization and intra ministry clusterf**k with no real plans, doctrine, or training for a forced landing of the British isles that even if they could successfully storm the beaches they lacked the lift capacity to supply the necessary minimum number of divions for advancing into England. And they couldn't have protected those supplies from the Royal Navy.

The Germans contracted out the construction of landing craft to a land based company with no experience making boats of any kind, and would have had to make do with river barges that weren't sea worthy.

The Germans never ever at any point held air superiority, and likely would never have been able to gain it to the point that the landings could be unmolested by air bombardment.

Only a handful of ports on the Channel coast had the capacity to supply the invasion and all of their facilities would've been sabotaged and demolished before the Germans could take them (Look at what the Germans did to Antwerp for example).

Most importantly; a committed invasion of the British Isles would've delayed Barbarossa to the point that the huge early successes would've been virtually impossible.

The Fliegerkorps in general just isn't capable of seizing anything the Germans would've needed to do; they would have had no locals or local intelligence to work with; the Germans would not have been able to relieve them in time even if they did take their objectives; what objectives would they have even taken that would've enabled to the Germans to successfully land and push in? Southern England isn't Northern France; and the Germans never had the same preponderance of air superiority in 1940 that the Allies did over Northern France in 1944. The British didn't have the same defencive strategy or organization that the Germans did for the Fliegerkorps to make sense in that context.

So basically the RAF would've relocated their airbases further north, but they still would have had the range to run interference with any naval landings; the Germans would not have been able to secure the landings from being molested by the Royal Navy; and even if all of this somehow succeeded you still end up delaying Barbarossa by at least 6 months to perhaps indefinitely which if you buy into the idea that war was inevitable or if the USSR attacks first then you just bought the Red Army enough time to finish its reorganization and requiping and supplying and the Germans have to deal with the 1943 Red Army without the 1941 and 1942 Red Army's losses to show for it; with their population and production facilities unharmed.

Like bro, the Germans were utterly dysfunctional with iner-service rivalries everywhere and this was deliberate; Operation Seelöwe was a mess in its inception and would've been a disaster in its execution.

Like at best the Fliegerkorps might have had tactical usefulness in Varsity style operations; but at the scale of the Eastern front and with the local Anti Aircraft capabilities the Soviets generally had they wouldn't have made any difference.

quote:

What if Hitler had had better sense when he decided to launch Operation Barbarossa, and included cold weather clothing and supplies with his troops?

How? Lets put aside the fact that the Germans were so absolutely confident in victory that to prepare for a drawn out struggle and issue winter uniforms would've been essentially admitting defeat how would they have been transported? On what available trucks? On what trains? On what transport planes? Would have the German soldiers wore them in the hot summer?

The supply channels were stretched to their breaking point supplying Barbarossa as-is; but it gets better! Here's a blog that explains better than I can

quote:

Anyone who has studied the documents (that is, the records of OKH) cannot fail to be impressed by the hundreds upon hundreds of orders, directives, and circulars concerning winter supplies that began to emanate from OKH from early August onward, covering every detail, from the reconnoitring of suitable shelters to the provision of freeze proof POL (petroleum, oil, and lubricants) from winter clothing to veterinarian care for horses.
It’s worth noting that required veterinary care for horses was a massive task because less than 20% of the German Army was motorized. 80% of German Army transport from moving the wounded to hauling cannon was done with horses. When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, their invasion force had three and half million men and more than a million horses.

Basically the idea that Hitler decided that the troops shouldn't have winter uniforms because he thought the war would've been over too soon is a myth and comes down to a logistical inability to supply them to the front.

quote:

What if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor when it did, or at least waited a year, or even a few months--so the USA would not have entered the war as soon as it did?

FDR, LIBERAL COMMIE PRESIDENT sent Lend-Lease to the USSR BEFORE December 7th 1941, in fact the first shipments arrived at the front by November 1941; FDR would've still sent Lend-Lease to the Soviets.

But, most importantly, Operation Bagration, which completely shattered Army Group Center and brought the Soviet Army into Poland was on June 22 1944. Operation Overlord was June 5th 1944; a whole 17 days previously; which was too short for any significant formations of German troops to have been shifted from the East to France.

Basically, the war in the Eastern front was effectively already lost by the Germans by then.

Additionally, Montgomery had already defeated Rommel at El Almein in July 1942 and even without Operation Torch the Germans would not have been able to change the strategic situation in Africa; maybe they can hold up in Tunis, who knows; but that's still 100,000 troops not fighting in Russia either way.

quote:

Are you capable of understanding how to evaluate such hypothetical situations honestly, and what they really mean? Yes, the Germans lost because they screwed themselves (mainly Hitler did), but if they had not screwed themselves, they would have won. Right? Do you get it?

Are you capable of understanding that even if the Germans had made a couple of less "mistakes" the economic, logistical, geographical, strategic, operational, tactical, and political, situations were such that you are insisting that essentially the Germans would have had to have made zero mistakes ever, not have been the Nazi's while also insisting that the Allies have made the same mistakes, and more?

You are not making a reasonable argument. If the Germans get a mulligan, why don't the Soviets? Why don't the Allies? Where do you get off on thinking that everything was happening in a vacuum?

Not everything is Hitler's fault, OKW and the German military in general was also making bad decisions! The German was effort was dysfunctional at every level.

You don't get to pretend that if the Germans managed to make a few less mistakes that the Allies wouldn't have had some other oppurnity to rectify the score; that's the other side of counter factual hypotheticals that you're not acknowledging is cause-and-effect.

That for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; other things would have also have gone differently; the Allies would also have reacted different and have made different decisions to compensate.

Like your hypothetical that the Germans could've taken Moscow would have resulted in them being disasterously over extended, more depleted, and more exhausted and likely would've resulted in the war being over for the Germans in 1942 because they truly might not have been able to withstand the 1942 Winter Counter Offencive.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Oh and Moscow has subways, that would've been fun for the Germans! Stalingrad with subways, fighting house to house and tunnel to tunnel from metro station to metro station. There's just no way. And just like Stalingrad had it got to that point the Winter Counter-Offensive would've crushed the Germans.

To repeat, the Germans barely prevented a total rout in 1942 through desperate measures; if they had exhausted even more of their limited reserves and strength trying to take Moscow and extended their lines even more it would've been catastrophe.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
I'm just posting to say that I was there for when Ron Lambert used his weeb wargame playing experience as something that makes him an authority in world war history over the "watered down PC propaganda" of actual historical study.

I was there. When nobody thought Ron could be more unintentionally hilarious, and then he acted dumber than he had acted before, I. Was. There.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
as a longtime player of the original medieval total war i have to agree with ron that germany would have definitely won if the turks hadn't started pumping out Saracen Spearmen

it is insane to assert, in light of my intense knowledge of military reality given to me by playing entertaining war simulations, that the german military was beyond hope in world war 2. they were still in the fight ... up to the day i set up a five-stronghold manufactory of Janissary Heavy Infantry between Cyranaica and Propontis, as any historical record not blinded by amoral liberal PC nonsense propaganda can attest.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Two things.

First, Ron, it is wrong for you to ascribe anti free speech aspirations to ALL liberals. I am as liberal as they come, and I am and always have defended your right to spout whatever nonsense you wish, without being attacked on the basis of "Oh look here's Ron," instead of the validity of your arguments.

Second, screw off, Stone Wolf. What, is this the part where you get to question the worth and word of professionals because you've spent ten ****ing minutes on the internet? Well, shit, if it's happening to me I guess I must really be part of the community now. How heartwarming.

But let me break it down for you, *as a person who has worked in the profession for years.*

There are, at the heart of it, two reasons why people are assholes or dumbasses. They either suffer from a learning disability, or a mental illness, or both.

OR.

They're ****ing assholes.

I frequently point out antisocial or idiotic aspects of my clients' behaviour, in blunt language, because when you are *truly* ill and *truly* want to act better an objective voice telling you what you're doing wrong is a *welcome* thing, and oftentimes the nature of what is causing the disconnect *requires* blunt language to get the message through.

And I will reiterate that my reviews both from supervisors *and clients* have been superb. I do a good job. Very likely, that owes in part to the scientific theory of "it takes one to know one."

But if I point out that you're being an idiot or a dick, Stonewolf, it's nothing personal. It's becsuse you are acting like a dumbass or a dick. You can do with that input what you wish. Unless, of course, you fall into the second category, in which case, you're just an asshole. In that case, what do I care what you think?

[ November 19, 2016, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Heisenberg ]
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, do you deny that Germany easily and swiftly conquered Poland, then conquered the vaunted French army, and drove the British Expeditionary Force clear off the continent--and would have wiped them all out if not for the miraculous/heroic Dunkirk evacuation? Do you deny that at that point Germany, with its weaker Italian ally, had virtually unchallenged dominion of Europe? (They did not conquer Switzerland or Spain because they did not need to.) German defenders were so well dug in, that when the D-Day invasion of Normandy was launched, one source I read said that only three men survived the first wave landing at the section of the Normandy coast the Allies designated as "Utah Beach." And that invasion might not have succeeded were it not that two Panzer divisions had been diverted to ward against an invasion at Calais, due to Allied deception that it might attack there. Had those two Panzer divisions been backing up the dug-in defenders at Normandy, the Allied invasion probably would not have succeeded in establishing a beachhead.

Let me add this objection: When I challenged you to provide your arguments for your ridiculous claim that the Germans could not have won WWII, I meant for you to provide succinct statements IN YOUR OWN WORDS, not quote paragraph after paragraph from one incompetent would-be scholar who obviously did not know how to draw valid conclusions about the evidence he was looking at, and seems to have been motivated by a desire to make a name for himself by being an iconoclast. If you had any competent professors, they would have taught you that unless you can express a subject IN YOUR OWN WORDS, then you do not understand it well enough to discuss it.

You are the one who chose to attack me for innocently stating what virtually everyone knows, that Germany did come close to winning WWII, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

And by the way, I take great exception to your blatant lying about my response to your stupidity, and about your projection of your own dishonest behavior onto me.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Heisenberg, obviously there are some liberals who have enough remnants of civilized values not to engage in violence on the streets. But what you teach, your whole worldview, leads to the behavior of the uncouth youth who are acting on what you teach, following the very "Rules for Radicals" that Saul Alinsky taught in his book--who was a person highly admired by Hillary Clinton (she wrote her dissertation about him).

The fact remains that conservatives did not riot, nor did their example and teachings lead anyone to riot, at the election of Barack Obama--despite all the evidence against him (such as sitting in the pews for 20 years listening to the extremist rants of the IRreverend Wright, and launching his political career in the living room of the proven terrorist and murderer, Bill Ayers).

Conservatives are willing to allow force of sound argument to carry the day. We do not seek to use violence and blatant deception to prevail. To repeat: To make a conservative angry, tell him a lie. To make a liberal angry, tell him the truth.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Ron, get off that shit. The people in the streets are not indicative of all liberals, and even most of the ones who are or were in the streets are *not* violent.

They're upset. They're making their views known to the public and the government. And there is very little that I could consider *more* American then that. I would have supported non violent protests every bit as much if Clinton had won.

As for Alinsky, I'd never heard his name before conservatives brought it up. I'm just not as *old* as you are, Ron. I have different views from you, certainly, but I hope that you can trust that I and many other liberals still value certain bedrocks; I.e free speech, democracy, and others, just as much as you do.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
But what you teach, your whole worldview, leads to the behavior of the uncouth youth who are acting on what you teach, following the very "Rules for Radicals" that Saul Alinsky taught in his book....
Have you actually read "Rules for Radicals," Ron? I ask because you don't seem to have understood anything Alinsky was actually suggesting.

quote:
The fact remains that conservatives did not riot, nor did their example and teachings lead anyone to riot, at the election of Barack Obama...
A week after Obama was first elected, Ron, I was at a festival in southern Indiana where one of the vendors (apropos of nothing, selling woodcrafts) chose to prominently display a gorilla suit in prison orange with a nametag labeled "President" -- swinging from a noose in a cage.

quote:
To make a conservative angry, tell him a lie.
No. In my experience, the most reliable way to make a conservative angry is to point out the actual consequences of conservative policies and hold him responsible for them.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
The fact remains that conservatives did not riot, nor did their example and teachings lead anyone to riot, at the election of Barack Obama...
A week after Obama was first elected, Ron, I was at a festival in southern Indiana where one of the vendors (apropos of nothing, selling woodcrafts) chose to prominently display a gorilla suit in prison orange with a nametag labeled "President" -- swinging from a noose in a cage.


To be fair, this counterexample isn't rioting. Idiotic, racist, and disheartening, sure. But it is not smashing in windows and setting fires to cars.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Ron, my argument has two thrusts.

1. That you can't just decide, and continuously insist. That everything goes right for the Germans, and assume that the Allies just are never doing anything in response, are never reprioritizing their resources, are never learning from the experiences, and will never at any point decide to change their own strategy and tactics in response to the Germans. Indeed, you seem to assume a situation in which not only do the Germans make less or in fact zero mistakes at all levels, but the Allies get no such allowances at any level.

2. But most importantly, my argument is to point out the broad economic, and logistical trends; this reinforcements point (1). Because it cuts right through the heart of your hypotheticals; like "What do you think would have happened HUH!? If the Japanese didn't attack for a year?"

This is actually a perfect microcosm of the flawed approach you are taking to this discussion. Because economically, the Japanese could not have possibly have afforded to wait a year; they were running low on their strategic reserves of fuel and other resources; the war effort in China would have ground to a half and the Japanese would have been forced to surrender to American demands; Pearl Harbour's entire purpose, was to enable the Japanese to capture the resources of South East Asia so that they could continue to fight unhindered in China.

You entirely neglect the economic and political situation of Japan, their own logistical burdens and geopolitical concerns; by doing so you have zero comprehension just how preposterous your "hypothetical" even is; that addressing it directly, would've been the least relevant to the overall argument I was writing in that post, because it was sufficient to point out even if the Japanese delayed for a year; it would have held zero effect for the European war.

You constantly neglect logistics, supplies, the politics, the strategic situation, constantly and it affects every argument you are making.

quote:

Elison, do you deny that Germany easily and swiftly conquered Poland, then conquered the vaunted French army, and drove the British Expeditionary Force clear off the continent--and would have wiped them all out if not for the miraculous/heroic Dunkirk evacuation? Do you deny that at that point Germany, with its weaker Italian ally, had virtually unchallenged dominion of Europe?

I do not deny that "event A, B, and C happened" I deny your fallacious reasoning that this is evidence for your argument; that this implied they could have taken Moscow, indeed recall that the Germans lost in real life; so clearly winning in Poland and France meant nothing for Russia in the long run; why should it imply anything? You seem to assign Hitler the blame for everything that happened in 1941 and beyond but none of the glory for what happened before that, and instead conveniently decide that it was the inherent suguiness of the German nation that results in their victories and none of their defeats.

The truth is more complicated; and the Prussian officer corps own biases originating from von Moltke had plenty on influence on the Germans complete dysfunctional disregard for logistics.

In the end though, war is not about being superior in every respect, but by being less worse than the enemy. "Do not interrupt an opponent when he is making a mistake."

quote:

(They did not conquer Switzerland or Spain because they did not need to.)

Spain was a nominal ally and sent volunteers to fight in Russia. Hitler wasn't just deciding to attack every nation as the opportunity comes up, but in response to the current geopolitical circumstances. For example he did not originally intend to invade Yugoslavia until changing diplomatic circumstances forced his hand.

quote:

German defenders were so well dug in, that when the D-Day invasion of Normandy was launched, one source I read said that only three men survived the first wave landing at the section of the Normandy coast the Allies designated as "Utah Beach."

Pretty sure you're thinking of Omaha Beach and certainly not the first wave, one or two of the companies that landed of the wave might have lost most of it's strength and ceased to exist as a fighting unit, but not the entire first wave; citation needed.

quote:

and that invasion might not have succeeded were it not that two Panzer divisions had been diverted to ward against an invasion at Calais, due to Allied deception that it might attack there.

I'd actually generally argue that the success of D-Day mainly shorted the war. Recall that Operation Bagration occurred June 22nd while Overlord was June 6th; the German war was already lost within the month and would've been a matter of time.

So again, you're focusing on a list of "Every Mistake the Germans Made", for an overall argument that the "war was close" when specifically here the outcome did not actually matter. There was zero ability for the Germans in 1944 to have changed the outcome of the war; it was lost.

Also even from the perspective of the Allies it isn't relevant, sure they fire Eisenhower perhaps if Overlord fails like Dieppe, but instead they'll just redirect resources to the landing in Southern France, aka Operation Dragoon, which was extremely unlikely to have failed based on a cursory look.

You're basically taking a shotgun approach here, this does not support your argument at all.

Like, the Allies in YOUR OWN WORDS deceived German intelligence, Hitler has nothing to do with that. OKW and Rommel made the wrong call.

quote:

Let me add this objection: When I challenged you to provide your arguments for your ridiculous claim that the Germans could not have won WWII, I meant for you to provide succinct statements IN YOUR OWN WORDS, not quote paragraph after paragraph from one incompetent would-be scholar who obviously did not know how to draw valid conclusions about the evidence he was looking at, and seems to have been motivated by a desire to make a name for himself by being an iconoclast. If you had any competent professors, they would have taught you that unless you can express a subject IN YOUR OWN WORDS, then you do not understand it well enough to discuss it.

1. I had twice posted approximately 6000 words in my own words in that thread, on pages 3 and 6 iirc; you had never responded to those words.

2. Additionally I am not posting their argument, I posted their post in its entirety so that the entire context of what I was actually interested would also be provided to you to avoid accusations of "cherry picking".

3. The numbers posted are irrefutable. The Germans had exhausted ~90% of their motorpool, and something like 70% of their total tank fleet by December 5th. You are free to provide sources to counter this claim; I'm sure it should be easy for you if you are correct; my posting Disinterested's and Boba_Fett's posts and their own paraphrasing of the books contents isn't relevant to you and basically makes you look salty; the numbers do not lie Ron.

The sheer attrition the Germans took by December 5th meant that the units nearest to Moscow were entirely exhausted and depleted of strength; your "wargaming" clearly did not prepare you for this historical fact; which means taking Moscow was patently not possible.

3. My argument is my argument, I have repeated it here in my own words, with slight tweaks depending on your responses because after all I am actually going to read your argument, weigh on them, and then respond if they are wrong; and my refutation will take any changes in your argument into account.

They're posts that I quoted does not actually make up my argument, they only provide me the hard numbers, and direct primary sourced quotes, to support my own argument.

So not only are you wrong in suggesting that I am plagiarizing my argument, but you continue to avoid the hard truth that those posts provide.

Perhaps you should actually step forth with your own citations if you disagree with mine so much.

quote:

You are the one who chose to attack me for innocently stating what virtually everyone knows, that Germany did come close to winning WWII, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

I have done so. I have provided my arguments and sources to back up my overall argument, the ball is in your court to actually refute my argument(s). Right now you seem focused on the overall claim that the Germans were dysfunctional and doomed to fail; but you never address the underlying arguments or my refutations of your individual assertions; perhaps you should start to do so.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
To be fair, this counterexample isn't rioting. Idiotic, racist, and disheartening, sure. But it is not smashing in windows and setting fires to cars.
I suppose that's true. Red-staters reserve that sort of activity for sports victories.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Basically your entire argument Ron, that the Germans "were close to winning", you can just concede that this wasn't the case; but you keep seemingly doubling down on your "innocent" comment; it isn't an innocent comment if it is (a) Wrong and (b) You keep doubling down on insisting that you're actually right and evil liberal iconoclasts and my liberal professors are actually to blame for me trying to refute you.

If it was an innocent comment, admit it's wrong and move on.

But since you are incapable of this; I'll just point out, quite explicitly, that your argument; "That the Germans were close to winning" rests on the notion that they merely had to not make a single mistake from 1933 to 1942.

That is actually the substance of your argument that you are presenting to me.

1. That they should have won the Battle of Britain by throwing more resources at it longer (they still would have lost).

2. That they should have delayed Barbarossa for a year (disastrous for the Germans, they invaded at the best possible time, hence them being essentially "lucky" up until this point).

3. That the Japanese an entire different country and geopolitical situation, could have done something entirely different from what they did!

4. That they should have kept using the Paratroopers after their "one bad experience in crete" (They did, but they lost most of their transport planes in the effort, so Varsity style landings were out of the question for Barbarossa).

5. I'm not sure if you supposed not invading Yugoslavia or not; but the invasion of Yugoslavia was not with forces designated for Barbarossa and did not affect the timeline for Barbarossa at all. Additionally invading 6 months earlier would've meant that (a) the Germans would have been less prepared than they were, and would have been less effective and had less vehicles, and (b) the weather would have been far worse in actuality.

6. Winter uniforms. This actually is a myth; the main problem was that the supply demands for barbarossa were so great that it just wasn't possible to supply over 160 divisions with winter uniforms in a timely manner; notwithstanding the fact that OKW had went into the invasion with the intention not for reaching Moscow, but to destroy the Red Army in the opening phases of the war "One swift kick and the whole rotten structure would come tumbling down" and this affected ALL of German High Command's planning for Barbarossa, Hitler isn't to blame here, but rather German officer culture that deemphasized supply and logistics, and grand strategy.

Barbarossa had failed in nearly all of its strategic objectives and Operation Typhoon was an improvization to attempt to end the war in the strategic equivalent of "shifting the goalposts" to now "taking Moscow", when there's zero certainty that taking Moscow ends the war.

I don't recall off hand what other arguments you made for the Germans if ONLY they hadn't lost such and such or made such and such mistake THEY COULD HAVE WON; but I maintain I certainly would have addressed it in my previous prolific postings about this.

But basically every additional argument you made actually weakens your overall argument because your increasing the burden the Germans would have needed to overcome "to have won the war".

To basically going "Well if they had done this, and that, and that, and that, and won that, and didn't lose that, or that, or that..." ad infinitum. It converges to zero Ron.

But instead you basically highlight the fact that the German war effort was highly dysfunctional, made a huge number of strategic mistakes, on top of Hitler's own mistakes and meddling.

To repeat, you basically are saying that if the Germans had not made a single mistake, if they weren't dysfunctional and inefficient Nazi's, then they would have won the war? This is ridiculous.

And some of those mistakes weren't even mistakes really except in hindsight, they were probably still the best options they had available. In a sense they HAD to invade in 1941 if you think war was inevitable, and in Nazi ideology it certainly was.

An example of inefficiency, the competition for build the Tiger and the resulting mess that was the ferdinand actually resulted in over 1000 less Panzer IV's built. For 90 Ferdinand Tank destroyers to show for it; and this sort of TheWackyNazis.txt just keeps showing up and repeating itself at some other scale for some other military project.

One of those mistakes? The German army liquidity a Jewish ghetto that was making winter uniforms. In November 1941.

Yeah they shouldn't have done that too I guess is what you're going to say?
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
To be fair, this counterexample isn't rioting. Idiotic, racist, and disheartening, sure. But it is not smashing in windows and setting fires to cars.
I suppose that's true. Red-staters reserve that sort of activity for sports victories.
True. I remember the riots in that conservative city Los Angeles in the red state of California when the Kings won the Stanley Cup in 2012.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
So what is the criticism about protests? Is there some massive riot going on destroying property or is it just some rando?
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
There WERE riots that destroyed innocent people's property. That was wrong.

But they were a small part of otherwise peaceful protests.

And I'm not digging how some latch on to that and declare that all that liberals know how to do is riot.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
There isn't any excuse for rioting or violence in response to the election, to violence against Trump supporters. Full stop. I understand the anger but a line has to be drawn, and your example of an effigy is pretty laughable in that context, Tom.

Now having said that-if Trump had lost it's really just a theory that there would have been no violence on their side, Ron. And yes, later on you'll lie about it and say it never would have happened as though you could know. But Trump encouraged his supporters to violence and toyed with violent rhetoric during the campaign. It's not unreasonable to think had it happened? They would've been violent to some extent.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
I dunno.

This may just be the liberal bias in me.

But I feel that the unacceptable conservative protests would have centered around sniper rifle shots aimed at liberal politicians and black people.

Much worse then broken glass, but I agree with you, Rakeesh. The liberal riots were unacceptable.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
At the risk of upsetting Ron who clearly objects to my crowd sourcing some of my evidence because Google seems entirely unable to get me good A grade sources, here's xthetenth's take on Operation Typhoon and the state the German's were in, he too is paraphrasing a book, but a different book:

quote:

Seriously, if the Germans had the strength to contest Moscow then how the hell do the losses they took in winter happen? They were in worse shape than the Soviets and badly strung out and the losses they took especially in heavy equipment show it.

The Rostov salient didn't form because the Germans didn't want the ground around it, it took the Soviets pushing back against the flank on the Tuzlov. The 56th army didn't manage to cross the Don on 25-26th November because the Germans were strong. Von Rundstedt didn't get removed from command on 1 December over giving von Kliest permission to retreat to the Mius river because he didn't want that land anyway, and his replacement von Reichenau didn't allow von Kleist to bring Panzerarmee 1 back to the Mius because it was good for his career prospects. The 14.Panzer-Division from that formation had only thirteen tanks still operational when the retreat began.

Reinhardt in the Klin bulge was in even worse shape because he attacked until he was virtually out of ammunition and ground to a stop 20-40km from Moscow. By the first week of December, 6.Panzer-Division had effectively 2 percent (a whopping five (5!) tanks) and 25 percent of its infantry. He had 10-12,000 infantry for 100 km of front. This isn't a position for attacking, this isn't even a position for defending if you can consolidate. There's a reason the Soviets were able to counterattack on the south with two armies with only 36 medium howitzers and 50 BM-13s, and barely 100 tanks of which only a third were KV or T-34s but 60,000 men. Same goes for the northern side where Lelyushenko only had 50 tanks, (10 modern) for an attack he was spearheading with the 8th Tank Brigade. His exploitation force was 8,000 cavalry and 30,000 infantry. That tank brigade went on to break through at Zabolote and open a wedge behind Klin by advancing 8 km. The Germans quickly found themselves in a position where they barely got their forces out of a looming encirclement by leaving nearly all their heavy flak and artillery guns behind. They lost 2,500 men, most of the artillery and vehicles from their leg infantry, and all five motorized divisions were rendered combat ineffective, and retreated westward even when not pressed. This is a force retreating in disarray from a breakthrough achieved by a Tank Brigade and a huge number of leg infantry advancing over open terrain in the winter, the thought of how poorly they'd fare in an attack against the same huge number of infantry in a city is laughable.

Guderian's Panzerarmee 2 was smashed so badly that the opposing 10th army was able to advance 30 km in two days, and again had to leave artillery and vehicles behind.

Tikhvin wound up getting resupplied by air for a reason, and similarly it got abandoned and von Arnim retreated to the Volkhov for a reason.

By the end of 1941, the Wehrmacht had lost over 2,600 tanks and assault guns and had another 1,000 non-operational pending repairs. Every single panzer army was defeated in battle in the span of 25 November and 15 December.

You should get Schwerpunkt, it's really good for this sort of thing. I'm just pulling from Striking the Hydra's Head, 25 November-15 December in it.

Again, this isn't me posting someone else's argument, but the entire post for the sake of context; because the primary purpose is to provide (a) Dates and (b) Numbers for the amount of attrition the Germans took during Typhoon and its aftermath.

I know you have already implicitly conceded that Moscow was impossible for the Germans to take by switching to saying "The germans should have delayed Barbarossa by a year", or what if the IJN didn't strike Pearl Harbour when they did; but until I explicitly get that concession IN YOUR OWN WORDS I'mma keep hammering you on this.

You are consistently wrong with basic facts that are independently verifiable and refutable by pretty much any history book.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, here are some comments you made that I will respond to.

quote:
1. That they should have won the Battle of Britain by throwing more resources at it longer (they still would have lost).
No they wouldn't have. Britain was on the ropes, their air force was all but destroyed. And as I pointed out before, Germany had already conquered Poland and France and the only nation resisting Germany's total dominance of Europe was the British. Had Britain been eliminated as a staging place, American intervention would not even have been possible.

quote:
2. That they should have delayed Barbarossa for a year (disastrous for the Germans, they invaded at the best possible time, hence them being essentially "lucky" up until this point).
The only advantage to the Germans for launching Barbarossa when they did was that the Soviet army was deployed in attack formations, and not in defensive formations. But since the Soviets thought the Nazi-Soviet Pact guaranteed that Germany would not attack them, they probably would have waited before doing anything to change their strategic deployment.

quote:
3. That the Japanese an entire different country and geopolitical situation, could have done something entirely different from what they did!
You miss the point that the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor enabled the USA to enter the war against Germany while Britain was still a viable protagonist. Records are that Hitler was not pleased by the Japanese attack, precisely because he knew it meant he would have to deal with the Americans now, with its immense resources and productivity.

quote:
4. That they should have kept using the Paratroopers after their "one bad experience in crete" (They did, but they lost most of their transport planes in the effort, so Varsity style landings were out of the question for Barbarossa).
The planes could have been rebuilt and what they already had could have been used against Britain instead of Russia.

quote:
5. I'm not sure if you supposed not invading Yugoslavia or not; but the invasion of Yugoslavia was not with forces designated for Barbarossa and did not affect the timeline for Barbarossa at all. Additionally invading 6 months earlier would've meant that (a) the Germans would have been less prepared than they were, and would have been less effective and had less vehicles, and (b) the weather would have been far worse in actuality.
Invading Yugoslavia was not a great challenge, since the German Nazis had many sympathizers in Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavian air force had recently been decimated by natural disasters, which Hitler took as indication of supernatural intervention on his side (Hitler dabbled in spiritualism).

quote:
6. Winter uniforms. This actually is a myth; the main problem was that the supply demands for barbarossa were so great that it just wasn't possible to supply over 160 divisions with winter uniforms in a timely manner; notwithstanding the fact that OKW had went into the invasion with the intention not for reaching Moscow, but to destroy the Red Army in the opening phases of the war "One swift kick and the whole rotten structure would come tumbling down" and this affected ALL of German High Command's planning for Barbarossa, Hitler isn't to blame here, but rather German officer culture that deemphasized supply and logistics, and grand strategy.
This is just ignorant. Of course the German military's combat effectiveness was virtually halved in cold weather because the soldiers were suffering from frost bite and other cold weather attrition. And whether or not it was Hitler who was primarily responsible for launching Barbarossa, or whether it was partly the fault of the General staff, changes nothing. The basic point remains that the operation was launched without properly equipping the Wehrmacht for a sustained military effort.

You have not responded to the simple facts I pointed out that Germany swiftly and easily conquered Poland and France, and expelled the British Expeditionary Force from the continent, and thus had virtual hegemony over mainland Europe, making it necessary for the Allies to have to engage in an amphibious assault even to get back into the war (this is ignoring the Africa campaign, which took place on a different continent). At that point, Germany had already nearly attained victory in WWII. How can any sane person deny that?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Here are a couple of articles by journalists that give a much clearer picture of the kind of person Donald Trump really is. The first one simply tells the truth many of us have known for a long time about Hillary Clinton. Nothing new there. But see especially the second one by Liz Crokin, that details the way Trump really treats minorities, women, etc.:

Link: http://newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest322.htm

This makes me feel a little better now about Trump being our 45th president. He has picked some good conservatives for cabinet posts and top advisors so far (the fact that some liberals are enraged by his choices speaks in favor of those choices). I still am concerned to see whom he really nominates for Supreme Court Justice, since that will determine whether the Court will follow the Constitution and guarantee real justice and religious liberty according to the principles of amendments and properly voted upon laws; or freely interpret it to suit liberal agendas which amount to control-freak semi-socialist tyranny.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
He has picked some good conservatives for cabinet posts and top advisors so far (the fact that some liberals are enraged by his choices speaks in favor of those choices).
*laugh* Ron, don't ever change. Not that I imagine you ever could.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Trump could pick literally Satan and you would think it's a good pick if it enraged liberals.

quote:

No they wouldn't have. Britain was on the ropes, their air force was all but destroyed. And as I pointed out before, Germany had already conquered Poland and France and the only nation resisting Germany's total dominance of Europe was the British. Had Britain been eliminated as a staging place, American intervention would not even have been possible.

The military campaign against England is decidedly *not* the military campaign against France or Poland. It's irrelevant that Germany rolled over Poland (barely 21 years old as an independent state) in a month; or rolled over France. There's zero relevance, you keep repeating this like it means something but you never explain why this is meaningful.

As for the military campaign against England, again, as I have repeated many times. The rate of attrition favoured the RAF. The RAF was producing more planes and pilots than they were losing.

Another thing you just seem to fundamentally do not understand is that had the strategic situation worsened for the RAF, they simply would have relocated to bases beyond the range of the BF-109's.

Now here's the question; the Germans STILL don't have undisputed air superiority; how do they knock England from the war? They still only have a couple of months with the RAF still effectively in the fight before they lose interest and invade the Soviet Union.

The logistical, doctrinal, operational, and tactical difficulties with amphibious landings are huge, it took years for the US to get good at them and even then the US military still had some colossal failures post WWII.

You have succumbed to the very same illness that the OKW and the German officer corps succumbed to, which is to assume that all difficulties can be overcome as a matter of 'will'; no matter what; you keep handwaving the impossibility of Operation Seelowe; you don't acknowledge that the Germans didn't have the experience, production capacity, or enough landing craft; not without severely delaying Barbarossa.

So again, the Germans did not have the RAF on the ropes, that is a complete myth.

Also, it is also completely untrue that the Americans could not have invaded Europe without England.

Operation Torch was staged from the American coast; if need be the Americans could have invaded from North Africa into Southern France and Italy like they had actually done, or simply shipped a few armies of GI's to the USSR to fight in Ukraine.

quote:

The only advantage to the Germans for launching Barbarossa when they did was that the Soviet army was deployed in attack formations, and not in defensive formations. But since the Soviets thought the Nazi-Soviet Pact guaranteed that Germany would not attack them, they probably would have waited before doing anything to change their strategic deployment.

This is so incredibly and patently false that it would take thousands of words to really explain it, but I'll try to make do with less.

Here's a 45 minute video; the Soviets were massively unprepared for war in 1941 that simply would not have not likely in all probability been true in the summer of 1942.

You're talking about a whole additional year in which to decide to take the Germans more seriously, to spend more time mobilizing, to finish the Molotov Line, to move more supplies and munitions to the front line; to shake off more of the disorganization difficulties of the Purges.

Stalin's unwillingness to react or provoke the Germans in June 1941 we have no reason to believe would have still been the case in 1942 for instance. The Red Army was a logistical and organization mess in 1941; 1941 was the best time for the Soviet Union to be invaded for far more substantial and logistical reasons than whether the Red Army was on a forward deployment or not.

Like this just laughably explains so much, the way you're thinking of things in purely video gamey terms and not how wars are actually thought; again you keep ignoring logistics; such as the fact that many Soviet formations were not supplied with sufficient quantities of ammo or fuel AT ALL in June 1941.

Notwithstanding the surprise factor of June 1941 that may not have been true as of June 1942; you have no means of positing if the conditions would have held true two years in a row; in which case, the Red Army is better supplied, better organized, better led, and better supported logistically and operationally; and the Red Army Airforce isn't caught on the ground.

I've mentioned this multiple times now but you keep ignoring it.

quote:

You miss the point that the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor enabled the USA to enter the war against Germany while Britain was still a viable protagonist. Records are that Hitler was not pleased by the Japanese attack, precisely because he knew it meant he would have to deal with the Americans now, with its immense resources and productivity.

What does this have to do with anything? Did you actually understand my point that the US entering in December 1941 had no influence on the war in 1941 or early 1942? That lend-lease was already in effect for the USSR since July 1941? How are you not understanding basic concepts?

Specifically here has some additional numbers at around 8-9 minutes in.

quote:

The planes could have been rebuilt and what they already had could have been used against Britain instead of Russia.

The Wehrmacht needed literally every plane. Or are you again suggesting that the Germans delay Barbarossa to 1942? Which again, would have been a disaster.

quote:

Invading Yugoslavia was not a great challenge, since the German Nazis had many sympathizers in Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavian air force had recently been decimated by natural disasters, which Hitler took as indication of supernatural intervention on his side (Hitler dabbled in spiritualism).

Non-sequitor.

quote:

This is just ignorant. Of course the German military's combat effectiveness was virtually halved in cold weather because the soldiers were suffering from frost bite and other cold weather attrition.

1. Where do you get the idea that effectiveness was "halved" was this because a board game told you so?

2. The Germans did scavenge for winter uniforms, and made do as best they could.

3.

quote:

And whether or not it was Hitler who was primarily responsible for launching Barbarossa, or whether it was partly the fault of the General staff, changes nothing. The basic point remains that the operation was launched without properly equipping the Wehrmacht for a sustained military effort.

Um yes it does, this is you shifting the goalposts now.

Because if it is primarily because of the High Command, who are a product of the Prussian officer corps, then it shows evidence that supports my argument, that the German war effort was inherently dysfunctional and handwaved away their problems through vast amounts of wishful thinking. These are systemic problems that cannot be handwaved away; it entirely discredits your argument that the Germans "could have come close to winning the war if only they had done X instead of Y" because it shows that they were institutionally incapable of that level of rational thought.

This is something explained in more recent history books that have had more time to delve into German archives and to better witness the dysfunctional of the Nazi regime through primary sources.

So good job refuting your own argument.


4.
quote:

You have not responded to the simple facts I pointed out that Germany swiftly and easily conquered Poland and France, and expelled the British Expeditionary Force from the continent, and thus had virtual hegemony over mainland Europe,

All of this is not actually germane to the actual discussion at hand. No one is disputing that the Germans had certain advantages in terms of doctrine, training, and organization at a tactical and operational level; that the General Staff was an experienced and professional force; no one is disputing that the Germans made better initial use of Tanks than their enemies during the early stages of WWII.

The point though is that their enemies; the Allies, both the Western Entente and the Soviets, all watched and learned. When they had time to breath and reorganize, to react in depth to German moves with countermoves; after the Germans had lost much of the steam and momentum of their early successes due to their own foolish mistakes and overconfidence that was a persuasive and institutional problem for their entire military structure: They began to lose, and it was inevitable by that point.

And for there to have been any other result they would have needed to have not been the Nazi's, and possibly have lost the early war, or have avoided the war entirely.

You are just not understanding the argument I am making, and you are not comprehending basic logical reasoning.

5.
quote:

making it necessary for the Allies to have to engage in an amphibious assault even to get back into the war (this is ignoring the Africa campaign, which took place on a different continent).

You're just going to keep conveniently ignoring that they invaded Russia and that by the time the Allies landed in Europe the war in Europe was already over?

6.
quote:

At that point, Germany had already nearly attained victory in WWII. How can any sane person deny that?

Konstantin Rokossovsky would like a word; again, you're assuming the conclusion and working backwards, you're assuming that either the Germans don't invade the USSR (Impossible, because Nazi ideology was all about that sweet living space in the Ost), or pull an impossible victory.

Once the Germans invaded the Soviet Union they were doomed; with a little help from the hard working American workers from Detroit, the Soviets killed 80% of the total military casualties of the Wehrmacht and broke them before the Allies had made any serious gains in Europe.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Ron if you were in the whitehouse and these protests just kept happening what would you do to stop them
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Heisenberg...I evaluate all input, w/ appropriate grains of salt...perhaps you should open up your self a bit and hear my opinion...

Your use of name calling in our interactions previously were, are, and continue to be, inappropriate and you lecturing others about "playing nice" is just as hypocritical as when I did it years before.

Also, Mr. Card has asked us to not cuss in his pool...show some respect for who pays to keep the lights on around here.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
And for the Gods' sake Elison, we are living in one of the most interesting time in politics since the hanging chad and you are talking about WWII w/ Ron! Get your own darn thread, you are cluttering this one up! [No No]
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Heisenberg...I evaluate all input, w/ appropriate grains of salt...perhaps you should open up your self a bit and hear my opinion...

Your use of name calling in our interactions previously were, are, and continue to be, inappropriate and you lecturing others about "playing nice" is just as hypocritical as when I did it years before.

Also, Mr. Card has asked us to not cuss in his pool...show some respect for who pays to keep the lights on around here.

No.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Ahhh, I do love the by play of a spirited debate!
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
And for the Gods' sake Elison, we are living in one of the most interesting time in politics since the hanging chad and you are talking about WWII w/ Ron! Get your own darn thread, you are cluttering this one up! [No No]

Ver' are your papers? Vas ist dis? Ver are your papers!?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Here: http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=060172;p=1#000000

I helped you out.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Ahhh, I do love the by play of a spirited debate!

Oh, you were serious?

Well here's a thing. When *I* tell people they're out of line, it's usually having to do with people attacking others because of who they are or what they've said in the past, and I respect free speech.

Whereas when you do it it's because someone's widdle feelings have been hurt, [Frown] , most usually yours, and now people need to be quiet or they're meanies. [Frown]

Also in reference to your request about my cursing because you felt defensive and were grasping for straws.

JanitorBlade has gone ahead and moderated things because Jesus figure OSC "wouldn't approve, unless we were talking to gay folks.

But okay. I said a bad word. It was in response to some idiot asking me to police my language because he got defensive. The exact words rhymed with "Luck Few."

I'll let you all figure out what that meant.

[ November 22, 2016, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Heisenberg ]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You aren't as liberal as you seem to give yourself credit for there hoss.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Or more to the point...you think you are part of the solution, but to me at least, you are part of the problem. [Dont Know] But ef me right?
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Nah, Dog. Whether you are physically capable of realizing it or not, I'm just about as liberal as they come.

Proud of it.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
"But ef me right?"

Honestly? Yeah, pretty much.

People have tried for years to open your eyes beyond your oversensitive, absolutely autistic reactions. Like, literally years.

In important discussions, the absolute best that you ever contribute are one liners along the lines of "Yay black people," or "Boo, Trump!". And all in the hopes that we'll all reach out through the Internet and tell you what a great ****ing guy you are.

Don't get me wrong; I've said on this forum and others that liberals didn't pay enough attention to dumbasses and the working class, and we need to work to figure out how we can trick/convice them in order to do what we need to do to win the *next* election and hopefully get things done or repaired.

But you're just one guy out of 60 million dumbasses. I'm willing to take the risk of offending you.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I guess "liberal" and "decent human being" aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
And I just want to point out that it was Rockdog that called me out like out of nowhere based upon shit I said months ago.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I guess "liberal" and "decent human being" aren't mutually exclusive.

Well of *course* they're not.

Whether I were a liberal or conservative, it's ultimately up to the people I respect, my family, and the goddamned universe/god, and also *me* to decide what I am and what I'm worth. It has nothing to do with my political beliefs.

Your stupid little passive aggressive put down says more about you then it does me.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Whatever you are, you are a waste of my time and energy, and as such, forgotten [Wave] bye bye
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
stone wolf have you noticed that every time you try to police other posters' behavior it goes really really badly, all around
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Twas not I who meddled, twas Tiddles who called for people to change how they talked to Ron...I merely pointed out the towering hypocrisy...and included myself...

Also [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Whatever you are, you are a waste of my time and energy, and as such, forgotten [Wave] bye bye

Oh shit, could you promise to ignore me for, like, three whole years?

Because two months without your passive aggressive bullshit would go down real nice.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Twas not I who meddled, twas Tiddles who called for people to change how they talked to Ron...I merely pointed out the towering hypocrisy...and included myself...

Also [Roll Eyes]

Yo Captain Passive Aggressive, the name of my asshole former handle was "Tittles." Get it right.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Twas not I who meddled, twas Tiddles who called for people to change how they talked to Ron...I merely pointed out the towering hypocrisy...and included myself...

Also [Roll Eyes]

stone wolf have you noticed that every time you try to police other posters' behavior it goes really really really really really badly, allllllllllll around
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Apparently no one has bothered to check the link I gave to an article that shows some good things about the kind of person Donald Trump is, that directly contradicts the image liberals are and have been trying to paint of him. So here is an excerpt to make things easier:

quote:
Trump Does the Unthinkable
by Liz Crokin

As an entertainment journalist, I’ve had the opportunity to cover Trump for over a decade, and in all my years covering him I’ve never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president.

Keep in mind, I got paid a lot of money to dig up dirt on celebrities like Trump for a living so a scandalous story on the famous billionaire could’ve potentially sold a lot of magazines and would’ve been a “Huge” feather in my cap.

Instead, I found that he doesn’t drink alcohol or do drugs, he’s a hardworking businessman and totally devoted to his beloved wife and children. On top of that, he’s one of the most generous celebrities in the world with a heart filled with more gold than his $100 million New York penthouse.

In 2004, the first season of “The Apprentice” aired and at that time I worked as an entertainment columnist for the “Red Eye" Edition of the Chicago Tribune” and as a freelance for “Us Weekly”.

I had a gut feeling that Chicago contestant, Bill Rancic, was going to win the reality show. So, I contacted him and covered the hit show the entire season. I managed to score an invite to New York for the show’s grand finale and after-party.

This is where I first met Trump and got to ask him a few questions. That year, Rancic did win “The Apprentice”. I attended “The Apprentice” finale the next two years in a row.

Between that and the frequent visits Trump and his family made to Chicago during the construction of their Trump International Hotel & Tower, I got a chance to meet most of his family too and I’ve had nothing but positive experiences with them.

Since the media has failed so miserably at reporting the truth about Trump, I decided to put together some of the acts of kindness he’s committed over three decades which has gone virtually unnoticed or fallen on deaf ears.

In 1986, Trump prevented the foreclosure of Annabell Hill’s family farm after her husband committed suicide. Trump personally phoned down to the auction to stop the sale of her home and offered the widow money. Trump decided to take action after he saw Hill’s pleas for help in news reports.

In 1988, a commercial airline refused to fly Andrew Ten, a sick Orthodox Jewish child with a rare illness, across the country to get medical care because he had to travel with an elaborate life-support system. His grief-stricken parents contacted Trump for help and he didn’t hesitate to send his own plane to take the child from Los Angeles to New York so he could get his treatment.

In 1991, 200 Marines who served in Operation Desert Storm spent time at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before they were scheduled to return home to their families. However, the Marines were told that a mistake had been made and an aircraft would not be able to take them home on their scheduled departure date. When Trump got wind of this, he sent his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami to safely return the Gulf War Marines to their loved ones.

In 1995, a motorist stopped to help Trump after the limo he was traveling in got a flat tire. Trump asked the Good Samaritan how he could repay him for his help. All the man asked for was a bouquet of flowers for his wife. A few weeks later Trump sent the flowers with a note that read: “We’ve paid off your mortgage.”

In 1996, Trump filed a lawsuit against the city of Palm Beach, Florida accusing the town of discriminating against his Mar-a-Lago resort club because it allowed Jews and blacks. Abraham Foxman, who was the Anti-Defamation League Director at the time, said Trump “put the light on Palm Beach – not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination.” Foxman also noted that Trump’s charge had a trickle-down effect because other clubs followed his lead and began admitting Jews and blacks.

In 2000, Maury Povich featured a little girl named Megan who struggled with Brittle Bone Disease on his show and Trump happened to be watching. Trump said the little girl’s story and positive attitude touched his heart. So, he contacted Maury and gifted the little girl and her family with a very generous check.

In 2008, after Jennifer Hudson’s family members were tragically murdered in Chicago, Trump put the Oscar-winning actress and her family up at his Windy City hotel for free. In addition to that, Trump’s security took extra measures to ensure Hudson and her family members were safe during such a difficult time.

In 2013, New York bus driver Darnell Barton spotted a woman close to the edge of a bridge staring at traffic below as he drove by. He stopped the bus, got out and put his arm around the woman and saved her life by convincing her to not jump. When Trump heard about this story, he sent the hero bus driver a check simply because he believed his good deed deserved to be rewarded.

In 2014, Trump gave $25,000 to Sgt. Andrew Tamoressi after he spent seven months in a Mexican jail for accidentally crossing the US-Mexico border. President Barack Obama couldn’t even be bothered to make one phone call to assist with the United States Marine’s release; however, Trump opened his pocketbook to help this serviceman get back on his feet.

In 2016, Melissa Consin Young attended a Trump rally and tearfully thanked Trump for changing her life. She said she proudly stood on stage with Trump as Miss Wisconsin USA in 2005. However, years later she found herself struggling with an incurable illness and during her darkest days she explained that she received a handwritten letter from Trump telling her she’s the “bravest woman, I know.” She said the opportunities that she got from Trump and his organizations ultimately provided her Mexican-American son with a full-ride to college.

Lynne Patton, a black female executive for the Trump Organization, released a statement in 2016 defending her boss against accusations that he’s a racist and a bigot. She tearfully revealed how she’s struggled with substance abuse and addiction for years. Instead of kicking her to the curb, she said the Trump Organization and his entire family loyally stood by her through “immensely difficult times.”

Link: http://newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest322.htm (second article)

[ November 19, 2016, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Ron, you should Google those stories.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I see that if trump lost ron would have stuck with the conclusions he had made about him that he was dishonest and immoral

but now that trump won, ron is frantically scrubbing his brain of previous Truth and deciding that because liberals hate him, he must actually be a Good and Decent Person

i think that's ultimately more pathetic than just thinking trump's a good guy from the beginning. that, at least, doesn't require a spat of personally reprogramming your own doublethink.
 
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
I'm not an American citizen, I do not support Trump at all, my candidate would be Gary Johnson. Just to clarify at the beginning.

I strongly believe that Trump's election is a triumph of democracy. Majority (as far as the electoral system allows) has spoken. In my humble opinion protests are completely and entirely asinine and immature in a civic sense. It's like the UK citizens, who after voting pro-BREXIT, checked online what European Union is. Entire nation votes on something, everyone is allowed to do it, the elections weren't rigged, millions and millions of people went to the ballot. It's difficult to imagine a fairer, clearer and more transparent way (in a democracy) to settle an argument of any kind. You don't like the result, you swallow it and wait for the next election.

He is good enough, it's a fact. Only the Sovereign (the People) has the power to determine that, and deteremined it has. Had Trump been a adulturer, liar, mysoginist, racist, stupid (as long as it had been legal), it wouldn't have mattered.

If anything, it is the People themself that should be contested as a not-so-good Sovereign, not Trump as a not-so-good elected leader.

Of course I mean now, before he got sworn in.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
Heisenberg: You don't get to swear at other posters here, and you are abusing the tolerance this board shows for profanity in general. Please edit at least the swearing at others.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Szymon:
I'm not an American citizen, I do not support Trump at all, my candidate would be Gary Johnson. Just to clarify at the beginning.

I strongly believe that Trump's election is a triumph of democracy. Majority (as far as the electoral system allows) has spoken. In my humble opinion protests are completely and entirely asinine and immature in a civic sense. It's like the UK citizens, who after voting pro-BREXIT, checked online what European Union is. Entire nation votes on something, everyone is allowed to do it, the elections weren't rigged, millions and millions of people went to the ballot. It's difficult to imagine a fairer, clearer and more transparent way (in a democracy) to settle an argument of any kind. You don't like the result, you swallow it and wait for the next election.

He is good enough, it's a fact. Only the Sovereign (the People) has the power to determine that, and deteremined it has. Had Trump been a adulturer, liar, mysoginist, racist, stupid (as long as it had been legal), it wouldn't have mattered.

If anything, it is the People themself that should be contested as a not-so-good Sovereign, not Trump as a not-so-good elected leader.

Of course I mean now, before he got sworn in.

Not being an American, are you aware of Comey, or various states voting laws?
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I see that if trump lost ron would have stuck with the conclusions he had made about him that he was dishonest and immoral

but now that trump won, ron is frantically scrubbing his brain of previous Truth and deciding that because liberals hate him, he must actually be a Good and Decent Person

i think that's ultimately more pathetic than just thinking trump's a good guy from the beginning. that, at least, doesn't require a spat of personally reprogramming your own doublethink.

Literally Doublethink.

Also I see Ron has declared victory regarding the Germans and will no doubt pretend he was right the whole time.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Szymon:
In my humble opinion protests are completely and entirely asinine and immature in a civic sense.

like, do you mean riots, or do you mean this about any assembly, peacable or non
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Syzmon doesn't understand that the United States was literally born because of a protest.
 
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Not being an American, are you aware of Comey, or various states voting laws?

Yes. But still it is the system that can be contested, not the results of lawful elections, right? If so, then the protests should take place before the election, not after. Maybe the election should have been postponed or something, but what is the point of holding them if you are not going to recognize them as lawful afterwards?

"The voting system is bad, but if Hilary wins it's ok, and we don't protest. If not, well, THEN we start the rioting, because they were rigged in the first place".

quote:

Originally posted by Samprimary:
like, do you mean riots, or do you mean this about any assembly, peacable or non

I mean riots, mostly, they are almost always wrong. If someone was protesting before the elections and is protesting still afterwards, then I understand completely.

quote:

Originally posted Elison R. Salazar:
Syzmon doesn't understand that the United States was literally born because of a protest.

I'm not sure if I see a logical connection between what I wrote and your evaluation of my understanding of how US was born.

So what if it was? It makes all protesting reasonable? That one cannot oppose a protest, because protesting is a midwife of USA? I protest.

EDIT: I obviously do not think that protesting is wrong, not at all.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:

"The voting system is bad, but if Hilary wins it's ok, and we don't protest. If not, well, THEN we start the rioting, because they were rigged in the first place".

Many were concerned about the effects of voter suppression (especially on the down ballet) even when assuming a Hillary victory was likely, and hoped that a Hillary Admin can do something to fix it. I'm not sure you understand the concerns.

People like CGP Grey were also consistent about their criticisms of the Electoral College way before this election.

quote:

So what if it was? It makes all protesting for any reason viable? That one cannot oppose a protest, because protesting is a midwife of USA? I protest.

I think our criticism is that your viewing the Trump winning protests by people in states like California because of small fly over states as trivial in their reasoning when it's anything but.
 
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
Ok, I understand. If US had an equal vote system, without the Electoral College, then the whole federation idea would seem obsolete, with California and it's 1/8 of entire US population being having more power than probably twenty least populous stateous combined.

What do you think about Yescalifornia and the idea of CalExit?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
terrible idea 100%
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Without the Electoral College close elections would trigger chaotic and contentious country wide recounts, something like it would need to remain to prevent that.

The real problem with the Electoral College is that it actually does not represent either the popular will, NOR the will of the states; it does not give the smaller sparsely populated states that much more of a say.

As an example, put the entire population into California and 1 person per other state, and according to the constitution California still ends up with 73% of the EC votes.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
How does your country elect it's PM? Or is it President too?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The Canadian process is actually pretty complicated. First, everyone who wants to run the country is required to punch a moose. Then they have to apologize to the moose as sincerely and rapidly as possible. The winner is the first one who manages to get the moose to apologize to them.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
terrible idea 100%

It would be a pretty terrible idea for *us*, in the rest of the country. I'm not so sure it would be so bad for the people who live in California.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Heisenberg: You don't get to swear at other posters here, and you are abusing the tolerance this board shows for profanity in general. Please edit at least the swearing at others.

Nah. I meant every single solitary word of what I wrote, and I won't be editing *crap*. You're the moderator, and you can do as you wish.

I guess I'll try to consider your request about language. But for the mouth breathrs who don't get it out tbere, and also Orson Scott Card, if I use the words freak or crap, you will still know the directed contempt behind the words.

[ November 25, 2016, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
This makes me feel a little better now about Trump being our 45th president.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
[QB] Apparently no one has bothered to check the link I gave to an article that shows some good things about the kind of person Donald Trump is, that directly contradicts the image liberals are and have been trying to paint of him.

http://i.imgur.com/TQD740o.png
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The Canadian process is actually pretty complicated. First, everyone who wants to run the country is required to punch a moose. Then they have to apologize to the moose as sincerely and rapidly as possible. The winner is the first one who manages to get the moose to apologize to them.

No this is mostly right but doesn't actually paint the whole picture, you have to remember that that is only the preliminary prequalifying round, there is still Eskimo bob sledding (where we ride an Eskimo named bob down a hill) and the worst are eliminated by a simple majority decision reached via consensus by the penguin, polar bear, and beaver councils.

There is also the dam building competition where we compete to determine the most convincing lesbian costume and also the maple syrup cooking contest while singing 'O Canada'.

Last time was contentious because Stephen Harper accused Justin Trudeau of fowl play by having an American chicken take the place of a Canadian one.

But of course I haven't paid much attention since the above is completely ordinary and boring in comparison to a Trump Presidency.
 
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
How does your country elect it's PM? Or is it President too?

In Poland we have both PM and the President, it's called dual executive power, which is supposed to prevent a situation when one person holds too much power. I personally believe it's totally stupid, as it generally makes president a "guardian of the chandelier" as some people call it, with little real power but still, according to the constitution, he is responsible for foreign affairs and is the official Chief Commander of Armed Forces.

Polish presidential elections take place every five years, while parliamentary elections take place every 4 years, unless the parliament self-disbands earlier. 2015 was groundbreaking, because both were held. After two terms the Center-right Civic Platform party and it's coalitiant (Polish People's Party, an agrarian christian party that always has around 10-15 seats making them a "hooker" than enters a coalition with any winning party who lacks few seats, the oldest continuous party in Poland) lost, and very unexpectedly Civic Platform's candidate, Komorowski, lost as well. Almost full power is now in the hands of one man, Kaczynski (whose twin brother, former president, died in the 2010 plane crash in Smolensk, Russia, along with 95 other government officials and crew).

Our presidential elections are so called 4-adjective (equal, direct, popular, secret), in the 1st ballot you vote for a candidate that gathered at least 100 000 signatures from Polish citizens (population 38 mln, so it's fairly easy). Usually we have around 8-10 candidates, but only 2 really count. If after first ballot there is no candidate who gained at least 50% + 1 vote, the second ballot is held (usually after two weeks) where two candidates with most votes compete. I'd have to check, but I think only once we had a president elected after only one ballot.

President doesn't hold too much power, he is mostly a representative of the state, pretty much like in Germany. However, he has the right to veto any bill passed by the parliament. Parliament then requires a higher majority to pass it again.

Parliamentary elections are 5-adjective (equal, direct, popular, secret, and proportional). It's super complex, but you may have heard of the d'Hondt Method - the highest averages method. Basically, it favors bigger parties. Wikipedia provides a good example. Poland decided to use this method due to historical reasons - in 1920's our parliament changed every 6 months or so, as there were countless parties with seats in the parliament, making it impossible to form a stable majority. Now the ruling party hardly ever has a "ruling majority" 50%+1 vote and require a coaltion. However, Law and Justice now holds almost total power. The only thing they don't have is Constitutional majority, which would allow them to change the constitution (2/3 of votes).

The parliament is, obviously, a legislative power, but it chooses the executive. Most often the leader of the winning party forms a cabinet, and the parliament (the majority is under control of the leader himself) passes (or not) the vote of confidence. Basically our powers are not seperated as they should be, since the leader of the winning party is a PM and) a leader of the parliamentary majority at the same time. It makes the goverment more efficient (but leads to things that we have right now).

[ November 22, 2016, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Szymon ]
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, your presumption is showing. My motive was only to bring to the attention of others some reports that contradict the untruthful way Trump has been characterized by liberal partisans.

I still view Trump with suspicion, knowing he has been a lifelong liberal Democrat, and am waiting to see how many of his campaign promises he keeps, and especially whom he chooses to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. My point is that contrary to the persistent propaganda of the Left, Trump does not appear to be a racist, and seems to have some generous impulses--at least now and then. I still would prefer that Ted Cruz had been elected.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Szymon, your Polish system sounds pretty complicated.

It is good that like us, your system makes it harder to change the constitution. That is a way to protect a minority from being persecuted by a majority; only a super majority can change the basic rules that limit government. Our system makes it even harder; not only must 2/3 of both houses approve a constitutional amendment, it must be followed by 3/4 of all state legislatures approving the change to the constitution.

[ November 22, 2016, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Szymon, your Polish system sounds pretty complicated.

It is good that like us, your system makes it harder to change the constitution. That is a way to protect a minority from being persecuted by a majority; only a super majority can change the basic rules.

However, the ruling party, which I strongly oppose, has found a way to change the basic rules, unfortunately.

Part of the constitution:
quote:

1. Judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal shall be of universally binding application and shall be final.
2. Judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal regarding matters specified in Article 188, shall be required to be immediately published in the official publication in which the original normative act was promulgated. If a normative act has not been promulgated, then the judgment shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland, Monitor Polski.

The last bit is what the whole country is roaring about right now. Namely, the goverment is responsible of the Official Gazette. They simply declined to publish two judgments, which they found "unconstitutional". Forgetting about the 1. "shall be final". Hundreds of thousands protest, but to no avail.

And yes, I envy you your constitution. It should be as hard to change, as possible. 2/3 doesn't sound as much right now, with what's going on in Europe.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Szymon, it sounds like your system does not have three distinct branches of government, like ours does. Our third branch, the Judiciary, advises on whether any given law may be contrary to the constitution. There is debate about whether the executive and legislative branches have to go by what the Supreme Court rules, but usually it's rulings are followed. The problem comes when a majority of Supreme Court justices do not believe in adhering strictly to the constitution, and can be creative in interpreting it. This can lead to changes in general practice that have not been decided by the legislative process. In other words, a court packed with liberals would lead to imposing policies and laws on the country that the people and their representatives have not voted for.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Could be worse. You could have your executive be the head of the most powerful wing of the legislature, and your head of state be a useless hereditary figurehead. (Hi UK!)

Royal family is going to get 330 million pounds to fix up their house. Courtesy of the UK taxpayers.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Actually Heisenberg the Royal Family leases a large amount of Crown lands to Parliament which is worth billions of pounds if it were to be administered entirely by a private entity and corresponding family firms/corporations.

The stipend their receive is a relative pittance in comparison to the value of their lands that the government instead runs on their behalf and receives the benefits thereof.

I mean you can try to argue that it shouldn't be their land because of centuries of "Bigger Army Diplomacy" is why its theirs but this applies and is equally true for a lot of long running wealthy families in older European countries that didn't have a Communist revolution or Nazi occupation.

Or like, I dunno, argue the socialist point of view that all property is theft but even I don't really agree with that.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Elison, your presumption is showing. My motive was only to bring to the attention of others some reports that contradict the untruthful way Trump has been characterized by liberal partisans.

Awfully presumptuous of you to address me without ever conceding that yes, Germany was never actually close to winning the war.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Except that until the early 90's the Royal family didn't even pay income tax, never mind inheritance tax. The royal family owes *us,* not the other way around.

They are more then rich enough to pay for the repairs to Buckingham Palace themselves, but privilege and custom have turned them to footing the bill towards taxpayers.

And this in a time of austerity where social services and benefits are facing cuts across the board.

My entire family are Royalists, but as I said to my parents once if you want your baby boy to grow up a royalist you *probably* shouldn't have raised him the the US.
 
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Szymon, it sounds like your system does not have three distinct branches of government, like ours does. Our third branch, the Judiciary, advises on whether any given law may be contrary to the constitution. There is debate about whether the executive and legislative branches have to go by what the Supreme Court rules, but usually it's rulings are followed. The problem comes when a majority of Supreme Court justices do not believe in adhering strictly to the constitution, and can be creative in interpreting it. This can lead to changes in general practice that have not been decided by the legislative process. In other words, a court packed with liberals would lead to imposing policies and laws on the country that the people and their representatives have not voted for.

I does, actually, at least so far there haven't been many problems. Imageine, it is technically possible, that a ruling of US Supreme Court wouldn't be accepted by the Cabinet. Say, because the Supreme Court judge is suspected of a serious crime, or relationship with a foreign secret service, I dunno, whatever. What would happen?
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
You wanna know what the problem is, here? Like, realtalk and with me making an effort to present it?

It is that people have essentially (out of inertia from Ron's literally over a decade of being a completely unfixably obdurate conspiracy theorist who blanket-condemns anyone who he sees as liberal) normalized ron's behavior to the extent that everyone's responses to ron become the only ever focal point of discussion about what people should or shouldn't be doing. Like ron's words are just some non-sapient meteorological event that are not accountable to anything.

That makes things expressly weird though, because just like with bean counter and malanthrop and reshpekobilgewater you cannot honestly expect people to simply not end up super done with treating him like a good faith participant in any contentious discussion, and then move straight to being the clutchers-of-pearl brigade over how people choose to respond to a poster who is strictly incapable of arguing in good faith.

If anyone here is sincerely worried about decorum, the way to make absolutely no progress is to skip past holding ron accountable for his tendency to move straight towards posting hot, aggressive, bigoted garbage all the time, and expect others to remain genteel and never have fun with it. You could remove me and multiple others entirely from the process and it would still happen.

The only action that will receive any dividends is if Ron is told that he cannot post hot, aggressive garbage in the first place. If he posts hot, aggressive garbage, any normative attempt to police the responses to it have already failed. "Don't Feed The Trolls," and all of its subcomponent truisms, hold the world internet record for most useless advice by volume ever.

*as a corollary point, nothing about this involves any sort of argument in favor of normalizing my behavior

I totally missed this, sorry, Sam. You are pretty much right in this.

I am totally behind rejecting hot garbage. What I am not behind is people treating every word out of someone's mouth as hot garbage solely because of who they are.

I would prefer to respond to the idiotic statements.

If Blackblade decides that someone is unworthy of the board, so be it. I hated everything that Lisa stood for and still valued her as a voice from an enemy that could allow me to see how they think.

But if people are allowed to post here, it's different. I would ask that people don't say

"Oh here's Ron everyone laugh, what a dumbass,"

But rather "Oh here's Ron saying dumbass things again, here's why."
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Elison, I do not need to concede something that is not true, that you never proved, that goes contrary to common sense. When Germany had virtually undisputed dominion of continental Europe, having defeated and taken over Poland and France, and driven out the British army and had the RAF on the ropes, and the USA had not yet entered the war, they most certainly were on the verge of winning WWII. Why do you keep repeating the same foolish claim that they never reached this point, as if simply claiming the same thing over and over again could ever make it true?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I find it amusing that some people seem to regard me as sort of a definitive factor in this forum, to which I only occasionally contribute. As I told members of the forum I frequent most commonly, AI-Jane, I like to post here in Hatrack every so often because it seems to make the liberals who frequent here so mad. To quote what is becoming one of my favorite sayings, "To make a conservative mad, tell him a lie; to make a liberal mad, tell him the truth." Many of you in Hatrack can't seem to stand it, and react with blind close-mindedness, pretense of intellectual adroitness, and of course the usual insult and derision, and attempt at rewriting history--claiming to have refuted me when you never have. To be called a liar by such habitual liars is actually a compliment. I always strive to be on the side of right and good and truth. It strikes me that only those who champion or embrace dishonesty and outright evil would so pathologically hate someone like me. Such hatred is a positive on my résumé. I do notice that a few individuals are coming to feel a proper angst about this, but when they speak up to chide the worst abusers, they are immediately pounced upon by those who resist conviction. This is certainly nothing new in the world. Some things people just have to see for themselves.

[ November 22, 2016, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Here's why you're a hack, Ron, and it's also the same reason why I'm willing to be so blunt: only your experts ever, ever, ever matter in any discussion of anything with you. Often (and if you respond at all you'll lie and claim you don't do this) you'll reach past dozens or even scores of other experts-such as in discussions of evolution especially and climate change if memory serves-and find a small handful that resonate with you.

These will then be the only experts worth discussion. Ellison referenced quite a lot of WWII history-even though he was discussing it with a man who actually used a goddamned *board game* by freaking MILTON BRADLEY, those avatars of historians-and you sneered at them. They somehow didn't count because he was quoting them, or something.

But if he had heeded your shifting, dishonest rules for discussion then perhaps he would be another of those poor liberals who didn't realize how they'd been duped. You wouldn't actually refute anything any expert he presented said. It's most likely you would simply say they were lying, liberal liberal lying blah blah.

Germany didn't conquer Poland alone, for starters. In order to get the RAF 'on the ropes', the Luftwaffe was strained to the breaking point itself. It had achieved major successes in Europe, but it was called *World War 2* for a reason. One ally, Italy, was actually worse than no benefit, it was a hindrance. Its other ally was so far away it could offer no significant aid at all other than to distract Germany's enemies-and they dropped many of their commitments in Asia anyway to meet them in Europe. Japan was never going to be able to achieve victory in the Pacific, and supposing a series of miracles and Germany took a few more major cities in the USSR...I supppse the same leaders willing to spend the lives of their people like pennies just surrendered?

Ugh. Freaking board game.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I find it amusing that some people seem to regard me as sort of a definitive factor in this forum, to which I only occasionally contribute. As I told members of the forum I frequent most commonly, AI-Jane, I like to post here in Hatrack every so often because it seems to make the liberals who frequent here so mad. To quote what is becoming one of my favorite sayings, "To make a conservative mad, tell him a lie; to make a liberal mad, tell him the truth." Many of you in Hatrack can't seem to stand it, and react with blind close-mindedness, pretense of intellectual adroitness, and of course the usual insult and derision, and attempt at rewriting history--claiming to have refuted me when you never have. To be called a liar by such habitual liars is actually a compliment. I always strive to be on the side of right and good and truth. It strikes me that only those who champion or embrace dishonesty and outright evil would so pathologically hate someone like me. Such hatred is a positive on my résumé.

Well now I know that listening to what liberals actually think has never been a thing you do. But really, when it comes down to it half the time it's anger and half the time it's amused contempt, speaking for the people you are certainly thinking about, these 'embracers of evil'.

Anyway, put that accomplishment on your resume next to your degree in history at the Milton Bradley University, Ronnie. Under or above the line about studying biology at divinity school?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Rakeesh, shall we consider again the actual scientific evidences that PROVE Creation and conclusively DISPROVE any possibility of Evolution? Or is it too much fun for you to simply wallow in juvenile insult and sarcasm?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
shall we consider again the actual scientific evidences that PROVE Creation and conclusively DISPROVE any possibility of Evolution
I know that I would like you to consider them again, Ron, since you've so badly misinterpreted the body of evidence on that topic. But I don't think you will.

-----------

quote:
I would prefer to respond to the idiotic statements.
Heisenberg, I mean this sincerely: Ron has nothing else to do with his life, and there just aren't enough hours in the day.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Yeah, by all means do that thing again where there's a field of study, this case not just history but hard science. And you will cloak yourself in the authority of experts...all while reaching past the overwhelming consensus in a given field to find one or a handful of experts and pretend to the authority of the entire community.

This is why you're not simply wrong and obnoxious, but are simply a liar in this respect. If you're going to do that monologue you'll claim the authority and respectability of science by cherry picking experts and ignoring the many times more of experts who dispute their claims. It doesn't even matter that you think they're wrong for you to be a liar in this respect: it's the part where you wave them aside as liars, embracers of evil, etc etc.

That's the way it is with you. Your opposition isn't ever simply wrong. They're murderers, or totally corrupt, or brainwashed they can't ever see the truth, or any number of other excesses. Evolution and biology aren't scientific questions to you, which is another reason it's so contemptible for you to try and claim scientific proofs. They're religion.

Well, at least in this respect we don't need to fear a Trump presidency: it won't reverse the trends on church attendance or belief in creationism, because there's no bottom line in those for him. But you can at least take heart: there's a big bottom line in climate change denial.

Also I'm just going to point it out again because it's funny to me: you tried to use a board game as a reason why you were well informed about WWII. Now don't get me wrong that is profoundly stupid, but you also did it to people who have at least a passing familiarity with how often games fudge history for gameplay purposes.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Rakeesh, shall we consider again the actual scientific evidences that PROVE Creation and conclusively DISPROVE any possibility of Evolution? Or is it too much fun for you to simply wallow in juvenile insult and sarcasm?

Which board game do you base this reality on? Does the Game of Life impose a racial 50% penalty to evolution based science when discussed on a forum?

Tell us, oh Ron, seeker of Milton Bradley reality
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Rakeesh, that seems to be one major area where we differ. I do not believe that reality is determined by majority vote, even majority vote of scientists. There are responsible, qualified scientists who do not choose to misinterpret obvious data to fit the preconceived worldview of evolution, which has been clung to so stubbornly by hedonists so that they could avoid having to face the possibility of having to someday face up to a Divine Judge. And I can quote exponents of evolution on that being their motivation.

Facts are what matter, Rakeesh. Facts that cannot BE interpreted any other way than the Creationist way. These are what I have presented on this forum before, and most of you chose to ignore it, refused to actually come to grips with it, hid behind appeals to "the majority of scientists." May I remind you that the majority of scientists once scoffed at the idea of rocks falling out of the sky.

It is God, the Creator, who alone determines all of reality itself. These words record the absolute, inescapable truth: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9; NKJV) This is the one true reality. This is the truth; and it is knowable.

All the scientific facts of the universe bear this out. I have shown this before, and am prepared to do so again. The theory of evolution has been completely and utterly refuted. Here is a link which I recommend to a responsible source of scientific evidence that verifies Creation: https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php

[ November 22, 2016, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
You're lying again. I did not say 'a majority of scientists claim 'x', therefore it is true.' Though it's not simply a majority, it's an overwhelming and enduring majority which has become the foundation of so much knowledge that is useful in the real world.

No, what I said was that you claim the authority and respectability of scientists by referring to your own tiny minority of experts and entirely discounting all of the rest as not just wrong but willfully wrong and deceitful.

Anyway, skip past all of your other bullshit if you don't mind. But I would love to hear you quote a proponent-a scientist of some sort and not just someone from the Internet-of evolution who claims a belief in evolution because he or she wishes to avoid having to face a Christian God. If you can find and quote one who actually says that, and not some version of your usual bullshit of inferring what they 'really' mean I'll promptly concede you were right. About that.

Oh, and for the record? Variations on the theme 'it would be a crappy world if some shade of the Christian God is who we had to answer to' won't suffice as it doesn't meet your own words.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I have bumped up the thread where I previously presented many of these arguments and evidences. It is titled "Young Earth Creationism." I do have more to add, even more conclusive arguments and evidences.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
As I told members of the forum I frequent most commonly, AI-Jane, I like to post here in Hatrack every so often because it seems to make the liberals who frequent here so mad.

We thank you for plainly admitting to both us and your islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic home forum that your reason for posting here is to amuse yourself by making people mad, but largely you miss how people generally respond to your presence. it's not 'ooh that ron lambert makes me so mad with his truth bombs' and more 'ron lambert is so entertainingly dumb sometimes, like that time he used tabletop wargaming experience to explain the realities of world war 2, and pretty much everyone was laughing at him'

still, thank you again for admitting why you post here. above all else i am glad to see you admit your pettiness!
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
it's not 'ooh that ron lambert makes me so mad with his truth bombs' and more 'ron lambert is so entertainingly dumb sometimes

Pretty much this. I read Ron's posts for the entertainment value alone - he's like the board clown representing a parody of a conservative. He's almost like his own strawman.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Waiting for you to quote hedonistic scientists admitting that their belief in evolution is a means to avoid acknowledging a future Divine Judgment, Ron. This is another of those things that won't go away.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
It scares me. When Ron said that Trump must not be so bad as he feared because he angers liberals, I wonder how badly he's been brainwashed.

Ron, Trump is exactly the evil, immoral scumbag of your first impressions. Liberals may disagree with you on a lot, but they aren't the opposite of everything you hold dear, and pure evil. You don't have to love everything they hate.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Rakeesh: I will put any new posts regarding Creation Vs. Evolution in the thread I just bumped up, "Young Earth Creationism."

I hope you know who Aldous Huxley was, and his influential role in the development of evolution-based philosophy.

[ November 23, 2016, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
it's not 'ooh that ron lambert makes me so mad with his truth bombs' and more 'ron lambert is so entertainingly dumb sometimes

Pretty much this. I read Ron's posts for the entertainment value alone - he's like the board clown representing a parody of a conservative. He's almost like his own strawman.
I find it can also provoke some good info as people tilt against the windmill. Ron's not going to learn anything but I might.

See the WW2 discussion for example.
 
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

Germany didn't conquer Poland alone, for starters. In order to get the RAF 'on the ropes', the Luftwaffe was strained to the breaking point itself. It had achieved major successes in Europe, but it was called *World War 2* for a reason. One ally, Italy, was actually worse than no benefit, it was a hindrance. Its other ally was so far away it could offer no significant aid at all other than to distract Germany's enemies-and they dropped many of their commitments in Asia anyway to meet them in Europe. Japan was never going to be able to achieve victory in the Pacific, and supposing a series of miracles and Germany took a few more major cities in the USSR...I supppse the same leaders willing to spend the lives of their people like pennies just surrendered?

1. Germany was extremely lucky, or Hitler extremely cunning and far-sighted. The fact that France did not attack Germany (but limited itself to the Phony War) in September 1939 is a single most criticized event in Polish historiography. Obviously it was understandable back then, but from our perspective it was a catastrophic mistake. Urban legend has it that Hitler fainted when he learned that Allies respected the alliance with Poland and declared war. UK had limited land forces, but France had a massive number of divisions right on the border, mobilised and ready for action. Had they really attacked, the war would have ended within a month, with Germany divided in half between France and Poland.

2. Delcaring war against USSR wasn't that stupid, at all. Taking Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad wasn't impossible. In my opinion, the single most important moment was Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. If US entered the war a year or year and half later, Germany could possibly defeat USSR. Make peace, releasing several states as puppets (Slovakia and Vichy style).

3. As a Pole I personally believe that the worst mistake Germany made was not allying with Poland in 1936. Moreover, I think it would save millions of lives, not only Polish citizens (both non-Jewish and Jewish). Imagine extra 70 infantry divisions and much shorter supply lines, no heavy gorilla warfare on Polish territory, when attacking USSR. It is debated that 50 or so divisions was what Germany lacked. After Piłsudski's death Germany lowered it's flags and the relationship really wasn't that bad. For Poland Allies where far to far away, and this is why we ended up on the wrong side of the iron curtain. It is completely imaginable that istead of joining the Allies, Poland could take the Swedish/Italian path, securing German eastern flank during Fall Gelb and Fall Rot (without declaring war against UK and France), and then helping defeat Stalin during Operation Barbarosa. Polish socialist government would never allow the holocaust, many of the members of the government being Jewish themselves. I Russia, a puppet government would be installed. US would enter the war, invade, Poland would change sides. 75% fewer civilian casualties. Weaker Russia.

And my beloved Warsaw not razed to the ground.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Szymon, that is an interesting option I had not considered. Was there a credible chance Germany could have allied with Poland? Would they have been able to get Stalin to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which assured Germany it would not be attacked from the east?

Poland certainly has long hated Russia. I heard of a Polish account that Poles used to pray that China would invade Poland three times. Their rationale was that if the Chinese army invaded Poland three times, it would have to cross Russia six times.

And certainly, the German invasion of Russia when it came would be viewed as a stroke of genius, had they not suffered the adverse weather they did (mud and cold), and had they equipped the Wehrmacht with cold weather clothes and other gear.

None of this, of course, changes the objective historical fact that at one point, Germany had virtually unchallenged dominance in continental Europe, having defeated the supposedly "invincible" French Army and its vaunted Maginot Line, and having driven the British Expeditionary Force (the best trained soldiers in the war) off the continent. How else can you measure when Germany was on the verge of winning WWII?
 
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Szymon, that is an interesting option I had not considered. Was there a credible chance Germany could have allied with Poland? Would they have been able to get Stalin to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which assured Germany it would not be attacked from the east?

...

None of this, of course, changes the objective historical fact that at one point, Germany had virtually unchallenged dominance in continental Europe, having defeated the supposedly "invincible" French Army and its vaunted Maginot Line, and having driven the British Expeditionary Force (the best trained soldiers in the war) off the continent. How else can you measure when Germany was on the verge of winning WWII?

There would be no need of a Nazi-soviet pact; Germany only needed it for the 1939/1940 campaigns. Poland would be more than capable of defending the eastern border while Germany conquered the West.

As to hate: the hate for Germans is still strong with the elderly, like my grandparents for example. My grandmother lost 8 uncles (families were pretty numerous back then) in war. BUT they were combatants, they chose to fight. Other than that they remember Germans as civilised and cultural people, who were clean and generally nice to people. Hell, the installed electricity in my grandparents' village, something they didn't have before the war. It doesn't mean their actions weren't evil, especially against civilian populace. Poles and Jews alike.

But the Russians... When you hear the stories, it's still chilling. When Russians entered, they raped, killed, pillaged and burned everything to the ground. Men would hide women in forests, in holes in the ground. Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.

This, among many others, is a reason why Poles are generally rusophobes from around 17th century. Our border with Russia changed dozens of times, through numerous wars - at first Poland won (15th, 16th and the beginning of 17th century, ever expanding eastwards, Poland is the only nation to have ever conquered and occupied Moscow. Russian main national holiday is a commemoration of riding Poles out of Kremlin), then Russia, always. Our western border with Holy Roman Empire hardly changed for 300 years or so. Actually the only major war Poland (as an independent state) fought against Germany after 1525 was the September Campaign in 1939.

Was it plausible? I don't know. It was definitely "noble" not to ally with a totalitarian state like that. However, all the atrocities didn't take place yet before 1939. Raison d'État, in my opinion, was to survive. You CANNOT fight against USSR and Germany at the same time. You need to pick one. Our diplomacy was doing just that - courting both powers - until 1938, waiting for how things unravel. I'd choose Germany, which was culturally, religiously, scientifically much closer than Russia. But at the same time our diplomacy in the USA since Woodraw Wilson was also very successful, same with France, not so much with Britain's Chamberlain. That's why we chose the "good ones", who were thousands miles away. When Poland was losing, British bombers dropped propaganda leaflets on Berlin.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I feel like my perspective of the world just expanded [Smile]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
quote:
How else can you measure when Germany was on the verge of winning WWII?
The real question is how close were the Russians to losing? From what I've seen, no where near it. The only way to win a war is to get the other guys to lose and the Germans had no way to force a loss on the Russians.

ETA: In the same way that the Japanese couldn't force a loss on the US. Their only hope was that the US would accept a negotiated settlement. They didn't get one.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Except that until the early 90's the Royal family didn't even pay income tax, never mind inheritance tax. The royal family owes *us,* not the other way around.

They are more then rich enough to pay for the repairs to Buckingham Palace themselves, but privilege and custom have turned them to footing the bill towards taxpayers.

And this in a time of austerity where social services and benefits are facing cuts across the board.

My entire family are Royalists, but as I said to my parents once if you want your baby boy to grow up a royalist you *probably* shouldn't have raised him the the US.

Why should the Royal Family pay income tax? They are the State.

The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained He gets a few details wrong but in the end it is not clear cut the idea that the tax paying is paying for their upkeep, but rather the Royal Family in effect pays "the people" a lot through the rights to their lands leased to Parliament.

Basically the amount you would get through income tax etc, and not paying their upkeep is LESS than what England gets by being able to keep profiting and managing the Crown lands.

quote:

Elison, I do not need to concede something that is not true, that you never proved, that goes contrary to common sense. When Germany had virtually undisputed dominion of continental Europe, having defeated and taken over Poland and France, and driven out the British army and had the RAF on the ropes, and the USA had not yet entered the war, they most certainly were on the verge of winning WWII. Why do you keep repeating the same foolish claim that they never reached this point, as if simply claiming the same thing over and over again could ever make it true?

They lost the war. Not a single thing you said actually mattered because they still lost.

Lets look at the details; again; since that's all you do, is repeat yourself, and the same assertions, again and again:


quote:

When Germany had virtually undisputed dominion of continental Europe

From 1940 to 1941, a grand total of maybe two years tops before it was no longer "undisputed" by virtue of the Russian campaign.

quote:

having defeated and taken over Poland and France, and driven out the British army

Again, because you appear to be a counterfeit thinker who has never responded to my actual arguments; I'll point it out again: Hitler and the Germans got lucky. Lucky that the British and French decided not to pressure the Germans in the Rhineland while the invasion of Poland was happening.

Lucky that the British and French decided to spurn the Soviets who had reached out to the Entente for an alliance to contain Germany; and when this didn't happen (second time too, the first time was over Czechoslavakia) decided to seek out the Molotov-Rippentrop pact.

Also lucky that when the Germans invaded France that the British and French High Command did not sufficiently protect Sedan; lucky they did not react fast enough while the Germans had a massive traffic jam in the Ardennes forest. Lucky that the French High Command did not keep pace with the doctrinal advances in tank warfare.

Additionally they got lucky that Guderian and Manstein had went over the heads of the OKW to Hitler directly to propose the Ardennes offencive when OKW was planning for Schieffelin Plan Mark 2.0.

Remember, you seem to put all the blame on Hitler for the defeats of the German army in 1941 onwards; but neglect to attribute the successes Hitler rightly deserved credit for.

But you're not going to respond to any of this.

quote:

and had the RAF on the ropes

Again Ron, this is false, you're a liar, and a fraud, a insignificant counterfeit thinker. I very much well explained why the Luftwaffe did not in fact have the RAF on the ropes; you can actually refute the individual points I made, or not, but if you don't, I'll just repeat myself; that you are a counterfeit thinker; that is until you actually respond to the counter arguments I made.

quote:

why do you keep repeating the same foolish claim that they never reached this point, as if simply claiming the same thing over and over again could ever make it true?

Because you are a liar and have significantly change your argument.

If you go back to your original post, you clearly said that they, the Germans, were on the verge of winning WWII if only they could take Moscow, that there was only "three" battles, you claimed, that they lost that had they won, they would have won the war.

Now you appear to be claiming that as long as they didn't invade Russia they would have won? If the US had not entered the war they would not have won? Then you are a liar and a fraud, who is dishonestly shifting the goalposts.

Remember again, I quoted at least two history books that you can confirm my early facts and figures that I quoted for you.

The Germans were never going to take Moscow; Moscow would've been Stalingrad with subway tunnels.

quote:

I hope you know who Aldous Huxley was, and his influential role in the development of evolution-based philosophy.

Didn't he write a science fiction novel? Are you quoting his science fiction now and extrapolating that to all other scientists?

quote:

Delcaring war against USSR wasn't that stupid, at all. Taking Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad wasn't impossible. In my opinion, the single most important moment was Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. If US entered the war a year or year and half later, Germany could possibly defeat USSR. Make peace, releasing several states as puppets (Slovakia and Vichy style).

This is 100% wrong.

Germany did not have the resources or the manpower to take any of those objectives and hold them. Operation Typhoon lost all of its steam 14 km away from Moscow (and for the record, the Germans absolutely could not see the Kremlin from 14km away this is historical fact Ron).

The Germans did probably take close to 95% of the western bank of Stalingrad; but again; it was impossible to hold it. Operation Uranus had something of a 3-1 advantage versus the Germans plus a massive geographical and strategic advantage; plus the matter of choosing to attack the poorly defended flanks.

As a result of the above; there's no way the Germans take Leningrad; it took the whole resources of Army Group North to maintain the siege and they couldn't consistently keep the road of life closed. There was just no reserves to throw at Leningrad.

quote:

As a Pole I personally believe that the worst mistake Germany made was not allying with Poland in 1936.

Consider that Germany would've lost either way; but also Poland would've been much smaller and more thoroughly occupied by the Soviets.

To be specific, for Poland and Germany to have allied would've required ceding Danzig and the Polish Corridor to the Reich and your only port.

You would NEVER had to have worried about the USSR if the British and French had accept the Soviet offer of alliance to contain Germany.

quote:

I Russia, a puppet government would be installed. US would enter the war, invade, Poland would change sides. 75% fewer civilian casualties. Weaker Russia.

This is Ron levels of wishful thinking. Polish troops would not have been able to turn the tide against Russia; in fact if this results instead in the Soviets at war with German in 1939/1940 it results in the war ending in 1943, but with an occupied Poland without the Allies giving a shit. And thus no iron curtain or Cold War.

quote:

None of this, of course, changes the objective historical fact that at one point, Germany had virtually unchallenged dominance in continental Europe, having defeated the supposedly "invincible" French Army and its vaunted Maginot Line, and having driven the British Expeditionary Force (the best trained soldiers in the war) off the continent. How else can you measure when Germany was on the verge of winning WWII?

No, no, no, no, and through "Facts, Logic, and Empirical Evidence, and Logistics." in order.

Basically again, you counterfeit thinker, you've changed the goal posts. You said in your original post that there was "three battles/mistakes the Germans made" that would have won them the war if they hadn't; how about instead of attempting to shift the burden of proof upon us; you actually elaborate why you feel the RAF was on the ropes; where's the statistics? How many planes were the RAF losing? How many were the Germans losing? What was the total aircraft production during this time?

quote:

The Luftwaffe suffered various problems which hampered its effectiveness in the Battle of Britain. It was designed as a close-support weapon moving forward with ground troops, not as an instrument for a strategic bombing campaign against a determined opposing fighter force.

Its lack of heavy bombers made it difficult to inflict strategically significant damage on British targets. The Luftwaffe’s fighter force had no effective method of plotting the positions of Fighter Command aircraft and also lacked any means of ground-to-air control of its machines.

The Germans suffered from supply problems and a lack of aircraft reserves throughout the battle, largely as a result of underachievement in aircraft production. Their rapid advance through Western Europe in the spring of 1940 forced them to hastily establish a network of air bases across occupied Europe. More significantly, the Germans had difficulties establishing adequate local repair facilities, forcing the removal of damaged aircraft back to Germany for fixing.

There were similar shortages of German aircrew. German fighter pilots were well-trained and had significantly more combat experience than RAF pilots. However, it was difficult for the Luftwaffe to offset its losses of experienced pilots. Any RAF pilot who successfully bailed out after being shot down over British territory could, if not injured, fly again. By contrast, Luftwaffe pilots who survived being shot down became prisoners of war.

This DOES NOT paint a picture of the Luftwaffe having a good time of it.

Statistically the Luftwaffe lost 1,977 aircraft, the RAF only lost 1,744. The Luftwaffe lost 200 more aircraft. If the Battle went on for long how does this ratio change?

Additionally by November 2nd the British had 40% more pilots while the Luftwaffe's declined by 30% without recovering.

There isn't a way that the Luftwaffe can carry on that struggle without exhausting itself; you never ever, at any point, elaborate what "on the ropes" even means because it certainly isn't defined as "losing the war of attrition" because statistically they were clearly winning that!

quote:

Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.

I think you're exaggerating the extent that this took place that together with your earlier wishes for a Polish-Nazi alliance makes me question your motives.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Ellison you clearly haven't played enough Stratego, enjoy god's judgment.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
God couldn't beat me at Stratego.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You believe in a weird god
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:

Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.

I think you're exaggerating the extent that this took place that together with your earlier wishes for a Polish-Nazi alliance makes me question your motives.
This kind of first (second) hand info really shouldn't be so easily disregarded
 
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
Elison R. Salazar,

Granted, the idea of Poland allying with Germany is far fetched. Last year there was a gripping book published here "Ribbentrop-Beck", as opposed to "Ribbetrop-Molotov". A really great read. Altough, Poland had a massive army (granted- mostly infantry, but with some really good new anti-tank weapons, as well as one of the best medium bombers at that time) and it COULD be enough to overtake Moscow and Leningrad.

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:

Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.

I think you're exaggerating the extent that this took place that together with your earlier wishes for a Polish-Nazi alliance makes me question your motives.
This kind of first (second) hand info really shouldn't be so easily disregarded
I just wrote a lengthy essay here, but I deleted it. It's like choosing between plague and cholera. Both Germans and Russians acted evil, it would be blasphemous to the memory of the victims, including my family, to write what is a bigger and what is lesser evil. Let me just say that German evil was "systemic" with orders and stuff, organized xenocide. Russian war crimes were more spontaneous.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:

Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.

I think you're exaggerating the extent that this took place that together with your earlier wishes for a Polish-Nazi alliance makes me question your motives.
This kind of first (second) hand info really shouldn't be so easily disregarded
Yes they can, if his family were people classified as class enemies its likely they would've faced a disproportionate amount of misery that would skew their views. The Red Army in Poland from what I've seen was no more or less disciplined than any other part of the war except for when they crossed into Germany. Recall that a part of what would be considered Poland then was incorporated into Belarus so for the initial liberation of Poland they would've been liberating Soviet territory.

Like the descriptions of Soviet solders as "beasts" is perfectly in line with most right wing literature, it isn't credible.

quote:

A really great read. Altough, Poland had a massive army (granted- mostly infantry, but with some really good new anti-tank weapons, as well as one of the best medium bombers at that time) and it COULD be enough to overtake Moscow and Leningrad.

No. This is Polandball nationalistic wank, sorry but you're wrong.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Estimated from what data?
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Reuters:

"Trump, without evidence, says illegal voting cost him U.S. popular vote"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-votes-idUSKBN13M0XZ?il=0

WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
 
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?

There's no way that that many undocumented immigrants voted. In previous elections, there have been less than 100 votes cast by non-citizens (I believe the number I saw was in the 50s).

Also, undocumented immigrants are terrified of coming to the attention of the government and being deported (or detained for months or years in appalling conditions before being deported). Therefore they are extremely unlikely to want to go anywhere near a polling place and take that kind of risk.

And, if there really are that many votes for Clinton that could be "illegal" why isn't Trump or anyone from the Republican party supporting any kind of recount effort?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Given that most estimates of the illegal population put it at under 11 million of all ages, I think 3 million voters is -- to put this gently -- rather optimistic.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?

So just like how you completely made up the assertion that the Luftwaffe had the RAF on the ropes, completely made up the idea that the Germans could have taken Moscow or Stalingrad, and completely made up the idea that Hitler was close to winning WWII from these prepositions you now also whole heartedly accept the made up and fabricated notion that 3 million people illegally voted for Hillary; not only that, but further extend this delusion into asserting that it was also 3 million illegals who did so.

Not unexpected from someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Lots a folks, in general, not just round these here parts, believe in something larger than themselves. I doubt they would enjoy being lumped together w Ron
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?
Were there any reason to believe that this were true, it would be a massive issue. People seem to forget that President is only one of the things being voted on in the elections. This level of illegal voting would make many smaller elections completely illegitimate.

If anyone actually really believed it, there'd be actual action taken. But no one does. It's either 1) Trump being a big crybaby and/or 2) an illicit attempt to undermine the perceived legitimacy of our elections, possibly as part of a Russian initiative*.

---

* I mean, that Trump is taking direct marching orders form Putin is unlikely, but it is orders of magnitude more likely than what he is actually claiming and it is in line with Russia's plans and interests.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Risuena said: "Also, undocumented immigrants are terrified of coming to the attention of the government and being deported (or detained for months or years in appalling conditions before being deported). Therefore they are extremely unlikely to want to go anywhere near a polling place and take that kind of risk."

What about in the many sanctuary cities? Here is a list of the sanctuary cities: Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, Austin, Houston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Miami. Link: http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html There are also a few states that call themselves "sanctuary states": Oregon, California, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Connecticut. In addition, there are "sanctuary counties" too numerous to list here. Link: http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

Mr. Squicky, funny how you try to castigate Trump for raising questions about systematic voter fraud (and remember, those charges of voter fraud are substantiated by the Project Veritas videos of Democratic party leaders caught boasting about their systematic election fraud, even detailing the methods used). BUT NOW IT IS DEMOCRATS JOINING IN THE RECOUNT EFFORTS, along with Jill Stein and her Green Party. For definition of the word "hypocrisy," see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy

[ November 29, 2016, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
She's joining in the longshot THAT HER OWN CAMPAIGN ADMITS, so that properly legal standing exists.

Because it would be awful if the 1 in a million situation occurs where all 3 states flip, and it doesn't matter because her campaign didn't do the necessary minimum legal action to ensure it would stick.

For the record, I don't believe the recount change the results.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Tell us what a sanctuary city actually is, Ron. I dare you.

Still waiting to hear from these hedonistic scientists who deny Creationism in fear of God's judgment.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Ron, you know Project Veritas is a fraud, right?

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?

Who estimated and from what data?
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?

So just like how you completely made up the assertion that the Luftwaffe had the RAF on the ropes, completely made up the idea that the Germans could have taken Moscow or Stalingrad, and completely made up the idea that Hitler was close to winning WWII from these prepositions you now also whole heartedly accept the made up and fabricated notion that 3 million people illegally voted for Hillary; not only that, but further extend this delusion into asserting that it was also 3 million illegals who did so.

Not unexpected from someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky.


 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Rakeesh, no dare is required. I am happy to answer a legitimate question.

Here is how Wickipedia defines sanctuary cities:

quote:
A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that has adopted a policy of protecting undocumented immigrants by not prosecuting them solely for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally. Such a policy can be set out expressly in a law (de jure) or observed only in practice (de facto). The term applies generally to cities that do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce national immigration laws, and usually forbid police or municipal employees to inquire about a person's immigration status. The designation has no precise legal meaning.

. . . .

The internal policy, "Special Order 40", states: "Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry)." These cities have adopted "sanctuary" ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Theamazeeaz: That link you give includes the following comment: "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations."

Please note that the sources cited are all super-biased leftwing media. And as is typical of their attempts at covering up conclusive negative proof of liberal Democrat wrongdoing, they say that the videos cannot be fact-checked. They did not say the videos were wrong. No proof was offered. They said proof could not be offered. I think that it would be foolish for anyone not to accept the revelations of Project Veritas.

[ November 29, 2016, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I think that it would be foolish for anyone not to accept the revelations of Project Veritas.
To be fair, Ron, of course you do.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
The article to which theamazeeaz linked is typical of left-wing argument. They say something weaselly that doesn't really have any weight or address anything specific, but just allows them to pretend they gave the illusion of "debunking" evidence against them--even video evidence with Democrat party leaders themselves making the statements--then they pretend they did refute it, when they actually did not. Note that article did not list one specific example of what they would call a false statement or actual misrepresentation. They refuted nothing, but just made pretentious generalizations, so they could pretend they did. I get that from some people in this forum all the time.

By the way, Risuena, I hope you looked carefully at the Wikipedia discussion of the meaning of "sanctuary cities" (and by extension sanctuary states and sanctuary counties). The significance is that in a sanctuary jurisdiction, an illegal alien who is not an American citizen can walk into the city clerk's office and apply to be registered to vote, and the staff are forbidden by law to inquire about their immigration status. So they have no problem at all registering to vote. Then when they go to vote, poll takers will check the illegal alien's address against a list, and as long as it matches the address given when the illegal alien registered to vote, the poll takers will allow him or her to vote.

Do you understand why the vast majority of American citizens feel strongly that there should be better procedures for verifying the legitimacy of voter IDs?

And despite all this, the way liberal Democrats have done all they can to stack the deck, Trump still won decisively in the Electoral College, 306-232. And don't forget, Republicans still retain control of both the Senate and House, and they picked up (I think it was) three more governorships, and added more state legislatures that they control--now I believe the total is 38, which is nearly 3/4 of the total. Why is it that liberal Democrats keep losing, losing, losing? Perhaps it is because they underestimate the intelligence of the average voter, who is not as easily manipulated by spurious arguments as the liberals hoped.

TomDavidson, with Project Veritas, we have Democrat party officials themselves speaking on video--so we can see and hear them. What more telling evidence could you ask for? What more "context" could you need? It is obviously pretty hard to refute such evidence--so liberals have no option but to obfuscate, throw out suggestions about needing more context, then referring back to that and pretending they refuted the evidence. This kind of very lax thinking manifested by liberals is what has led to an increasingly large majority of Americans turning away in disgust from liberal Democrats. The same is true concerning all the Wikileaks revelations. Democrat attempts to blame it all on the Russians falls pretty far short of answering what is revealed in those emails. My question is, how long can you go on deceiving yourselves with such obviously inadequate responses to the evidence?

[ November 29, 2016, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?

So just like how you completely made up the assertion that the Luftwaffe had the RAF on the ropes, completely made up the idea that the Germans could have taken Moscow or Stalingrad, and completely made up the idea that Hitler was close to winning WWII from these prepositions you now also whole heartedly accept the made up and fabricated notion that 3 million people illegally voted for Hillary; not only that, but further extend this delusion into asserting that it was also 3 million illegals who did so.

Ron can't even spell "biased" or "Wikipedia" correctly.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Give it a rest, Elison. You are just being tiresome. You never proved a word of what you claimed, and restating your opinion over and over again does not constitute logical argument. You have chosen to take a position that is really pretty stupid, and goes contrary to the conclusion of every respected historian who has ever written about WWII.

WWII is really beyond the topic of this thread, so I will not respond to any more of your juvenile foolishness about it here.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
with Project Veritas, we have Democrat party officials themselves speaking on video
I would suggest that you look into this fact more closely, actually. I am reluctant to waste any time explaining to you why you should be skeptical of right-wing descriptions of what can be found in the PV footage, but I think you can produce your own "come-to-Jesus" moment, perhaps, if you do your own open-minded research.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Theamazeeaz: That link you give includes the following comment: "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations."

Please note that the sources cited are all super-biased leftwing media. And as is typical of their attempts at covering up conclusive negative proof of liberal Democrat wrongdoing, they say that the videos cannot be fact-checked. They did not say the videos were wrong. No proof was offered. They said proof could not be offered. I think that it would be foolish for anyone not to accept the revelations of Project Veritas.

NBC news (not MSNBC)? USAToday? [ROFL]

Ron, most of your sources are from highly biased right wing fake news sites and conspiracy theorists pages.

Unlike with James O'Keefe's other videos, full footage has been not made available. The unedited source material of James O'Keefe's other videos show him to be completely dishonest. You would have to be a fool to believe anything that comes out of this man or his so called Project "veritas".
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Tom, you seem to believe that anything "right-wing" is dishonest. I believe the actual evidence is overwhelming that it is the "left-wingers" who are CHARACTERISTICALLY dishonest. And in evidence of that, I can point to left-wing produced books like Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals inwhich he encourages liberals to be deliberately dishonest, make up false accusations, and inundate conservatives with them (which is exactly what they did with Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin), so their targets will have to respond to all these charges at their own expense, and so the public will suppose that there must be some truth to all the allegations. When the targets are eventually cleared of any wrong-doing, maybe a couple of years later, the damage will already have been done to their reputations.
 
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
 
Ron - is there a reason why you have twice referred to me as "Lisuena"? It's not my name.

Regarding sanctuary areas, there is no one single definition. I live near four different sanctuary areas and none of them have exactly the same rules. One prohibits their law enforcement work with ICE to detain immigrants. One will only allow immigrants to be detained for ICE with adequate probable cause. And so on. Basically, they keep their own law enforcement out of immigration enforcement but do not prevent ICE from enforcing immigration.

Also, have you looked at any voter registration forms lately? For my state, in order to register to vote, you must provide you driver's license or state id number. And if you don't have that, you have to provide your SSN. In other words, they check to make sure you are a citizen and who you say you are before you are registered.

My state doesn't allow undocumented immigrants to have drivers licenses or state ids. And it doesn't mean that there wouldn't be consequences for anyone, undocumented or not, who tried to commit election fraud.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Theamazeeaz, All the mainstream media, including ABC, NBC, CBS, are dishonest and have a bias so extreme it is a shame to Western Civilization. MSNBC is just a little more blatant about it.

I have yet to see where you or anyone else have cited a specific statement spoken by a Democrat Party official, and even tried to prove he did not say it. The video evidence is pretty hard to run away from.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?

Who estimated and from what data?

 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
kmboots, I noticed what you said the first time. Since you don't seem to mind if you are embarrassed, I will reply. I asked the question what is the response of people in this forum to what "someone" has said. Is it true? Do you have any basis for denying it? Asking for verification of sources is irrelevant. Or can't you see that?

I believe Donald Trump tweeted that estimate, but I do not know where he got the figures. It seems a reasonable estimate, considering how easy it is for illegal aliens to register to vote in sanctuary cities, where the city clerk staff are forbidden by law from inquiring about immigration status. I would like to see an investigation into how many illegal aliens did vote. And the question still needs to be answered, "Do you think non-citizens should be allowed to vote?"
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Risuena--Sorry for getting your name wrong. It was not intentional. I will go back and correct it where I can.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
kmboots, I noticed what you said the first time. Since you don't seem to mind if you are embarrassed, I will reply. I asked the question what is the response of people in this forum to what "someone" has said. Is it true? Do you have any basis for denying it? Asking for verification of sources is irrelevant. Or can't you see that?

I believe Donald Trump tweeted that estimate, but I do not know where he got the figures. It seems a reasonable estimate, considering how easy it is for illegal aliens to register to vote in sanctuary cities, where the city clerk staff are forbidden by law from inquiring about immigration status. I would like to see an investigation into how many illegal aliens did vote. And the question still needs to be answered, "Do you think non-citizens should be allowed to vote?"

So you don't really know who and there was no evidence. You seem to be just pulling things out of your...hat.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

Tom, you seem to believe that anything "right-wing" is dishonest...
All the mainstream media, including ABC, NBC, CBS, are dishonest and have a bias....
When the targets are eventually cleared of any wrong-doing, maybe a couple of years later, the damage will already have been done to their reputations.

First off, Ron, I just want to point out that your concern here -- that false accusations are made against targets that suffer enormous actual damage, only to be later (and uselessly) cleared of wrongdoing -- is in fact the standard MO of Project Veritas. It's their raison d'etre. I encourage you to do your own research into them, because I'm under no illusion that anyone but yourself is capable of presenting you with information that can possibly change your mind; you are obviously operating with a very limited familiarity with the facts re: Mr. O'Keefe and his various enterprises, and I think you'll be somewhat disillusioned once you understand how they actually operate and how poor of a source of truth they actually are.

Secondly: I've read Rules for Radicals, and it's pretty obvious that you're just spouting off what you've heard other people say about Alinsky. I don't think you'd enjoy the book -- it's not written in a tone you'd find constructive -- but I think you should consider picking it up when you have the time. He's not at all as right-wing counter-revolutionaries have depicted him.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Your question is a stupid one-no one thinks non-citizens should be permitted to vote-and your premise is, like yourself, dishonest. You haven't shown or even attempted to show that illegal immigrants can vote in sanctuary cities. The explanation you used for for what a sanctuary city is doesn't support that. You go from 'certain kinds of law enforcement don't do immigration work' to 'any illegal can register to vote and then vote free of impediment.' Now you'll never admit this, but that's a huge leap you haven't substantiated.

Equally amusing is your response to people saying 'these videos are edited to present a false premise'. Your response is simply to repeat 'Democrats on video!'

Way to dig deep for the truth, Ron.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
Interesting and Relevant Piece by The Week
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Interesting article
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
I'm pretty glad that Ron Lambert is warning up to Trump and starting to think Trump is an allright kind of guy after all. (After all he makes liberals mad, which to Ron is an immediate sign of virtue) Its the best proof the world has yet that when trump assumes the presidency he's going to be a spectacularly corrupt and incompetent shitshow
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
There is no standard of evidence or source Ron would believe that he would not condemn as either a sell out, being black mailed by the Liberal Illuminati, or evil left wing conspiracy.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Which is crazier? The crazy person or sane person talking to them?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Or, more precisely, if you truly believe Ron is unreachable, why are you reaching?

I believe there might be a reason...and if true, I'm sad for here
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
Honestly, none of these responses to Ron are trying to "reach" him.

Personally, I like when Ron posts. I find him fascinating, but probably not for reasons that he would appreciate.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Maybe so, but let's not pretend that those expressing frustration or annoyance at Ron are the only thing they feel... entertainment, humor, and self aggrandizement putting him in his place.

It's not like he has an over abundance of cred on this street or anything
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
We do it because there's a risk he convinces some young impressionable idiot that maybe he's onto something that the LIBERAL MEDIA is hiding.

Like I have no idea what you yourself are trying to get that.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I doubt Ron is winning any hearts or minds...my motivation, is to not see this place turn cruel
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
I don't think any of us could possibly be crueler than the fact he's suffering just living everyday on our sinful earth.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Your kindness is overwhelming
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Or, more precisely, if you truly believe Ron is unreachable, why are you reaching?

I believe there might be a reason...and if true, I'm sad for here

I keep making the mistake of believing he can be rational about some things and not 100% brainwashed.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I doubt Ron is winning any hearts or minds...my motivation, is to not see this place turn cruel

Trying to be the forum feelings police again?

Stop.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
If my mild suggestion was policing, than your abrupt command to "Stop." is a cavity search... hypocrisy is fun!
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Pretty simple;

"Ron said this and therefore it's stupid."

Not okay.

"Ron said this, and it's objectively stupid, and here's why."

Cool.

Ain't nothing wrong with cruelty when it's committed in service to the second example.

Also Parkour ain't a hypocrite. You continually climb up other poster's asses in the most annoyingly passive aggressive fashion possible, and act bewildered when you get a negative response. Stop trying to tell others what to do.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:

Also Parkour ain't a hypocrite. You continually climb up other poster's asses in the most annoyingly passive aggressive fashion possible, and act bewildered when you get a negative response. Stop trying to tell others what to do.

Yup. We have several threads already where you wasted everyone's time with this, stone wolf. You're bad at it and we don't want it, we want you to stop. So stop.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You are both acting hypocritical...but points for consistency

You guys are not even remotely close to being the boss of me.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
most of the forum is really super tired of you doing this, sw

you are not always a bad poster but when you're doing this bit you are pretty much at your most insufferable. nobody wants you to do this, your efforts are not appreciated and they do not help. you need to call it quits on it.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Here's the combined bulk response that I have put together from multiple posters' various statements about how we don't want your forum civility policing:

quote:
Thank you for offering your opinion, Stone Wolf.

We dislike your philosophy on civility and we dislike your position on how you think other people should act "civil" and we find it flawed and ignorant of a lot of factors. We have tried to explain this to you in detail before but you have openly rejected the explanations and constantly remained ignorant of a lot of issues people have with it. We dislike the attitude and that you still try to peddle your pet theories on how others should be acting. We have decided that your advice is not valuable to us and we will be disregarding it. Please stop pushing us to change in the way you desire, we will change on our own if we choose. Thank you in advance for ceasing your evangelizing, which has been described as "forum civility policing" and "forumsplaining" because it has become inordinately grating and never any more valid the more you try to push it. It does not help the forum become a better place. It is not appreciated. We do not want it. Stop trying to police the civility of other posters. Do not continue to try to justify it. You have lost your credibility in this affair. We are not interested in hearing your excuses for it because it has caused you to act stubbornly and reprehensibly in the past. Stop.


 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm surprised you put that many words together...it almost made me miss your characteristic brevity.

Let me save you tons of time...never ever not in a million years of Sundays, thanks for asking tho. [Wave]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Or...

Dear Hatrack,

I love you, but I love me more, so I'm gonna stay exactly the same. Ifin you do not like me or my input, feel free to not tell me about it...I will not be censured or quieted or shamed. If you insist on sharing, I empathize, so go ahead, but don't expect me to shut up until my dying breath.

Love
SW
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I hope that settles that
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
Oh, so you'll patronizingly meddle over other people's behavior but when asked to change your own you'll say you'll never do it in a million years.

And you had the manchild audacity to accuse others of hypocrisy first.

Just like before I was right to spit on your sanctimonious wankery. Go ahead and dig in.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Oh, I'll change... change is inevitable, but I won't change who I am just because it annoys some grumpy ol' timers who like to bitch and bitch and moan and piss about...almost anything really.

You all have every single right to follow me around and refute every single point I make, to prove me so brilliantly wrong that the epicness of your win goes down in interwebs history...but you have no right to silence me, and you will not...ever

The interesting thing is...I didn't jump down anyone's throat like you guys are me...oh well, irony lost on those who fail to detect it [Dont Know]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
BTW Parker...I wear your scorn as a badge of pride! With enemies like you, I must be doing something right
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
SW, that you think you have enemies is both absurd and sad.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
SW it'd be a lot less eye rolling if you had at least done the requisite amount of effort and leg work; for example, I don't recall you spending around approximately 8 hours of your time writing 20,000 words trying to convince Ron that no, he's actually wrong and completely off based and here's the list of certified historians who all agree and have done the research but no HE'S PLAYED A WWII BOARD GAME AND THAT MAKES HIM AN EXPERT AND THOSE HISTORIANS ARE EVIL LIBERALS SEEKING TO TURN OVER ESTABLISHED TRUTH BECAUSE THEY ARE ATTENTION SEEKERS WISHING TO CORRUPT PURE CHRISTIAN HISTORY NERDS BUT I CANT CALL A SPADE A GODDAMN SPADE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE RUDE TO THE 70 YEAR OLD WHO THINKS THE US WAS A BETTER COUNTRY BACK WHEN BLACKS AND WOMEN COULDN'T VOTE.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You are yelling like I don't already know Ron isn't pushing snake oil... everyone knows... that's why I don't get what you are so worked up over
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
BTW Parker...I wear your scorn as a badge of pride! With enemies like you, I must be doing something right

This is like hearing you say stuff like "because I believe things about the pyramids that makes educated people roll their eyes at me and think I'm a moron, I must be asking the right questions".

You're celebrating that you can
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Not really, just publicly noting my disdain of your opinions in general
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
*whooosh*
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
Jesus, here we go again. EVERY thread here has to devolve into this. With one common ingredient.

SW, no one is telling you to shut up, or not be yourself. But can you *please* just take this crap into a separate thread, so that it can be easily ignored by those of us who aren't interested?

And before you say so, the discussions here with Ron are not the same.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I've tried to move the WWII convo w zero results...and you guys can handle some back pressure on beat up Ron day...if everyone would stop flipping their lids that I had an opinion and shared it than Wolfgate 2016 would have been done and gone over a page ago

But instead let's hear from our next contestant on, Dogpile on SW day

And I was like, really REALLY clear that I won't clam up.

So you want less drama...so do I. Let's talk...idk?...about effing politics in this here effing political thread
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
stone wolf: man if people would just give it a rest we wouldn't have to go through any of this!

everyone else: so why don't you give it a rest yourself

stone wolf: no, i refuse to change, I'M gonna keep going no matter how much it annoys people. i just complain if other people don't accommodate my refusal to change, because then that becomes drama.

everyone else: ...

stone wolf: now then, i want less drama, so YOU can all talk about something else while i continue acting the exact same way thanks

everyone else: ...

stone wolf: it's a good thing i'm here to to remind people how to act more civil
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I've tried to move the WWII convo w zero results...

Zero results? It had exactly the correct results. A legitimate thread drift was broken off into its own thread, those involved continued the discussion, and those disinterested were able to ignore it.

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
and you guys can handle some back pressure on beat up Ron day...

This isn't beat up Ron day. These kinds of discussions with Ron, for good or bad, are a staple of Hatrack. They've been going on a long time. This place isn't *turning cruel* because of this. But there *is* a change that has been going on recently. As ridiculous as Ron's claims are, and as absurd as his comments and points and references can be, he stays on topic. Whatever the thread title is, that's what he's talking about. He may mention in passing how poorly he believes he is treated, but he doesn't hijack thread after thread after thread to bitch about nothing else for pages and pages.

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
if everyone would stop flipping their lids that I had an opinion and shared it than Wolfgate 2016 would have been done and gone over a page ago But instead let's hear from our next contestant on, Dogpile on SW day

"Everyone" did not *flip their lids* because you had an opinion, and this is a bizarre definition of "dogpile". You got a response from two people you have a history with (something which does not interest me, but which I can't help but be aware of). The blowback occurs when the thread degenerates, once again, to personal one-on-one bickering between some member of Hatrack and you about how you're being treated.

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
And I was like, really REALLY clear that I won't clam up. So you want less drama...so do I. Let's talk...idk?...about effing politics in this here effing political thread

By all means, open your clam about politics all you want. But if you want to open your clam about yourself and other people, why don't you just do it in another thread? Why do these ones have to constantly get shit-up?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
But if you want to open your clam about yourself and other people, why don't you just do it in another thread?

No problem boss [Wink]
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
This was just published:

"After the extensive recount effort, Trump actually increased his margin of victory by 162 votes in Wisconsin." Link: http://ijr.com/2016/12/754565-final-results-are-in-from-wisconsin-recount-jill-stein-was-right-trumps-vote-count-was-off/?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=morning-newsletter&utm_mediu m=owned

Thank you, Jill Stein, for all the money you spent getting this result.

And although the recount in Michigan has been halted, it has already been discovered that in one precinct in Detroit (mostly black, mostly Democrat, with Democrat poll officials and Democrat government) a sealed box labeled as containing 300 ballots, was found to contain only 50 ballots. Someone had to sign off on that when it was sealed. There were a few "GOP" volunteer officials who supposedly also signed off on it, but they were appointed by the Democrat Clerk's office. Just as I expected, any recount would reveal election fraud by Democrats. Too bad they are not including in their recount efforts an attempt to assess how many voters were illegal aliens, who should not have been allowed to vote in our elections, because they are not citizens. But City Clerk officials and poll officials were not allowed to inquire about anyone's immigration status, since Detroit is a "sanctuary city."
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
A word, if I may, about the Democratic Party's obsession with going into hysterics about alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic Party leadership: Even if the Russians were the original source of the Wikileaks revelations of Democrat e-mails, that still does not prove that any of the damaging things in those e-mails were not actually written by the authors of those e-mails. Unless the Russians (or anyone else) actually hacked voting machines (which experts say is not possible, since they were not connected to the Internet), then the Russians or whoever the hackers were did our nation a real service, by revealing the dark, detestable, criminal things Democrats said and did which they were trying to conceal, and from which they are still trying to divert attention.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Maybe so, had they ALSO dished the dirt on the reds, instead, the timing is suspect as an effort to influence the elections.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
 
I would not be surprised if we start seeing the "dark, detestable, criminal things" the GOP did after the electors vote.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
A word, if I may, about the Democratic Party's obsession with going into hysterics about alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic Party leadership: Even if the Russians were the original source of the Wikileaks revelations of Democrat e-mails, that still does not prove that any of the damaging things in those e-mails were not actually written by the authors of those e-mails. Unless the Russians (or anyone else) actually hacked voting machines (which experts say is not possible, since they were not connected to the Internet), then the Russians or whoever the hackers were did our nation a real service, by revealing the dark, detestable, criminal things Democrats said and did which they were trying to conceal, and from which they are still trying to divert attention.

If Russians stole American nukes and used them on an American city, would you argue that it isn't really the Russian's fault, and the Americans never should have created the nukes to begin with?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Lyrhawn, sorry, but that was the poorest attempt at drawing an analogy that I have ever seen. NOTHING equates.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
It is not just one precinct in Detroit that had a discrepancy between the number of ballots claimed and the number actually recorded by poll workers:

quote:
Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s Michigan recount unintentionally exposed major voter fraud in Detroit.

Election officials in Michigan found that 37% of precincts in Detroit tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books.

Hillary Clinton won Wayne County over Donald Trump 67% to 30%.

State officials are planning to examine about 20 Detroit precincts where ballot discrepancies occurred.

Detroit News reported:

Voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes than they should have during last month’s presidential election, according to Wayne County records prepared at the request of The Detroit News.

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.

Link: http://dcwatchdog.org/what-voter-fraud-michigan-recount-uncovers-too-many-votes-in-37-of-detroit-precincts/

What this sounds like is that someone--in about 20 precincts--fed the same ballot into the vote tabulating machines over and over again. The report said that state officials are going to investigate this. In other words, this is a matter of criminal investigation. They will be questioning every worker in those 20 precincts, asking them how they did not notice this, and how they could sign off on sealing boxes containing ballots that are labelled as having many more ballots than they actually contain.

[ December 13, 2016, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Hundreds of precincts around the state couldn't be recounted because the ballots totals on the report outs didn't match with the totals on the boxes. This extends way beyond just Detroit. The vast majority of it is simple human error, and failures on the part of poll workers to reconcile different count numbers as the are supposed to. The real travesty is that Michigan election law forbids these precincts from being recounted, making election fraud more likely and less transparent.

Guess who put that idea into law? Hint: It wasn't Democrats.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Lyrhawn, the recount in Michigan was halted before it was complete by a federal judge. But it did have some results in Detroit, where the recount would likely have begun (before rural areas of the state). In at least one case previously reported, the sealed box for a precinct was labelled as having 300 ballots in it, when in fact it only contained 50 ballots. There is no way that could have happened by accident. Poll watchers were supposed to sign off on those boxes.

So your response is to try to put the blame on Republicans for some egregious sin by Democrats. When are you going to allow true honesty to change your political worldview? Can't you admit that Democrats are continually discrediting themselves?

[ December 13, 2016, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Lyrhawn, the recount in Michigan was halted before it was complete by a federal judge. But it did have some results in Detroit, where the recount would likely have begun (before rural areas of the state). In at least one case previously reported, the sealed box for a precinct was labelled as having 300 ballots in it, when in fact it only contained 50 ballots. There is no way that could have happened by accident. Poll watchers were supposed to sign off on those boxes.

So your response is to try to put the blame on Republicans for some egregious sin by Democrats. When are you going to allow true honesty to change your political worldview? Can't you admit that Democrats are continually discrediting themselves?

Egregious sin?

More than likely an 85 year old poll worker who had been working from 6am until 9pm put the ballots in the wrong place and incorrectly signed off on the sealed box. Michigan elections are horribly mismanaged. Poll workers are untrained. Machines are old and break down. It's difficult to verify and audit results thanks to our bizarre laws.

I'm glad they are auditing a random sample of Detroit ballot boxes. Hopefully they'll come away with some common sense reforms to make our election system here better. But I doubt it.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I love the way blindness and dishonesty just snowball into your conspiracies, Ron. 'There's no way that happened by accident!'

Except...well, just a screw-up, also commonly called an accident. Don't know if that's what happened here, but it's entertaining how you totally discount the possibility right up front.
 
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
 
Okay, maybe it was just a snowball of mistakes due poor practices and over aged and overworked poll workers. But the results are showing this across multiple precincts in pretty egregious numbers.

I'm not with Ron, I don't think it's a smoking gun, but it certainly needs to be looked at really closely with the blinders off.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Okay, maybe it was just a snowball of mistakes due poor practices and over aged and overworked poll workers. But the results are showing this across multiple precincts in pretty egregious numbers.

I'm not with Ron, I don't think it's a smoking gun, but it certainly needs to be looked at really closely with the blinders off.

Ron's point only covers half the story. More than a thousand precincts across the state, in liberal and conservative areas (and really everything outside of Metro Detroit is pretty red), were found to be not recountable because there were inconsistencies with the ballot boxes. Some of them were improperly sealed, some weren't recorded correctly, etc. I think the story here is that Michigan election procedures are fundamentally flawed and error-prone, and a major overhaul is necessary to improve the integrity of the process.

And as I said before, it should absolutely be investigated. It should be statewide, not just in Wayne County.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
michigan is not interested in creating errorless voting and would fight an overhaul even if they had evidence of widespread electoral tampering.

the only way they would not stonewall on electoral tampering is if it was electoral tampering that benefited democrats.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
michigan is not interested in creating errorless voting and would fight an overhaul even if they had evidence of widespread electoral tampering.

the only way they would not stonewall on electoral tampering is if it was electoral tampering that benefited democrats.

I absolutely agree with this.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Why MI so cray cray?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
MI isn't even the worst. the north carolina GOP is actively subverting democracy to make sure white people stay in power. this is not hyperbole.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Why MI so cray cray?

Because it's completely controlled by Republicans.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
That'd do it
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
The question is volatility. In the end, everyone who votes will vote for someone. Right now, relative to 2012, there seem to be a lot of undecided voters, especially if you factor in that 3rd party candidates tend to lose support over time.

So where does that 16% of the vote go? Does it split evenly between the two candidates? Or swing more toward one or the other? This chart maps out how undecideds broke in several close Senate contests over the past few elections. I'm not sure of the methodology, but it appears that in most cases the 'undecideds' seem to break disproportionately toward one candidate or another.

If this translates to the Presidential election, it means that this election could still be a blowout either way, with Trump winning Oregon or Minnesota, or Clinton winning Georgia or Arizona. Or, if the shifts are idiosyncratic, it could mean a large deviation from the fairly consistent red/blue maps we've seen over the last four elections.

Nate Silver sees significant impact of a late deciding voters on the election.

The Invisible Undecided Voter
quote:
The late shift toward Trump, like other periods of polling instability throughout the campaign, was consistent with a long-term pattern. Historically, the more undecided and third-party voters there are, the more volatile and less accurate the polling has tended to be. The relationship ought to be fairly intuitive: There’s not much a pollster can do when a voter hasn’t yet made up her mind.
In the end, the shifts turned out to be somewhat idiosyncratic; other than the mid-West, most states' undecideds didn't break strongly for Trump. But in PA, MI, OH, MN*, WI they did. Which broke the 'blue wall' of states that had gone Democratic for several elections in a row. We didn't get to the North-South split I had been envisioning, but the map was still quite different than previous years.

*Trump lost MN; but third party candidates held up better there than elsewhere. Clinton's margin of victory was less than a fifth of the combined third-party vote, which was about 8.5% of total (compared to about 6% nationwide). Evan McMullin did particularly well there with 50K votes (about 1.8% of total), better than anywhere other than UT and ID.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
Well, we're ****ed.
 
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
 
That's putting it fairly generously I'm afraid.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I'm curious how many people are thrilled with their choice so far...
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
Well, we're ****ed.

Well that's a really pessimistic view of tbe situation. You know, the cones of some pine trees require forest fires to allow the propagation of the seeds within.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
In this case, though, we're the existing trees.
 
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
 
Trump to focus on finding illegal voting only in states the Democrats won.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
Well, we're ****ed.

Well that's a really pessimistic view of tbe situation. You know, the cones of some pine trees require forest fires to allow the propagation of the seeds within.
People are like pine trees: alternative fact.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2