**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

There's a surprise:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7406106.html

[JimmyS1985]

There's a surprise:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7406106.html

I think the Canadian Government is far better ran than ours will be under Trump. You certainly don't see people crashing the immigration sites to Trump's new allies like Dutuerte's Phillipines, and Putin's Russia. There's at least some kind of reason for that.

[wufwugy]

Don't worry I'm sure he'll be deported soon.

That assumes Britland would take him back.

There's a surprise:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7406106.html

Probably just a bunch of patriots booking flights for Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer.

[Poopadoop]

That assumes Britland would take him back.

You mean because he makes fun of Trump they'd refuse him? On those grounds, about the half the UK would have to leave.

Probably just a bunch of patriots booking flights for Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer.

Better hurry up before Canada builds a wall and makes you pay for it.

[wufwugy]

Better hurry up before Canada builds a wall and makes you pay for it.

I'd be willing to help them build a wall around Quebec.

[rong]

Lol that your president said "I'm very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words." I mean just lol. That's the guy you picked to run your country.

[wufwugy]

Lol that your president said "I'm very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words." I mean just lol. That's the guy you picked to run your country.

I supported the smartest motherfucker in the entire field, both sides. But even he lost to Trump, maybe because Trump knew that, at that time in the campaign, he was speaking to simple folk.

[Hoopy]

Everyone (every single person) is "anti-establishment." There isn't a single person who thinks everything the government does, the media says and the academics teach is honkey dorey. But you can't shut your ears to every politician, reporter and economist/military officer/what-have-you or else you're ignoring every single person who is qualified to inform you.

The problem is in specificity. If you're not nailing down *what about* those things you disdain, which you want to remove and how you are going to solve what's left, then you're bound to throw the baby out with the bath water.

And that's what happened here. You hate CNN? Great, me too. But there was only one major publication in the entire country that endorsed Trump, and it was National Enquirer. This isn't a problem with "mainstream media"; it's a problem with every single fucking reporter on the face of the planet, at which point we've gone beyond hating the establishment and have entered The Matrix level of reality doubting.

I could go down the list with each of the aspects of "the establishment" the same way, but the list would be needlessly exhaustive.

The point is that I'm not some establishment bot by any-fucking-stretch of the imagination and I'm absolutely a skeptic. But at a certain point, it gets to be such a scattershot that it's like saying, "Fuck The Man," and going down the street and punching literally every person with a Y chromosome in the dick. Um, that's not what we meant by "The Man."

Let me just clarify that I don't support Trump, nor do I live in the USA.

I agree with what you say mostly. It's lazy to just rail against the 'establishment' but leave out any specifics or possible solutions. However Trump not being a career politician is a very important part of the reason he won imo.

[bigred]

Trump needs to stop tweeting about the protesters and condemn the surge in hate crimes over the last day. That would be a good step towards unifying the divide and easing some of the protest backlash.

[surviva316]

Trump needs to stop tweeting about the protesters and condemn the surge in hate crimes over the last day. That would be a good step towards unifying the divide and easing some of the protest backlash.

OMG, I just realized that the responsible thing for me to do would be to follow Trump on Twitter. Because that's now the president's Twitter account. And he uses it a lot. And here-on-out, it will have a very real affect on my life.

Between this and reading his website yesterday and realizing that he actually promises some of the craziest of shit that I'd assumed was just campaign trail soundbites ... this just keeps getting worse.

[wufwugy]

Between this and reading his website yesterday and realizing that he actually promises some of the craziest of shit that I'd assumed was just campaign trail soundbites ... this just keeps getting worse.

Like what?

[OngBonga]

All those people who are protesting against Trump are fucking idiots.

Either protest against your means of democracy, or go fucking home. They just look like sore losers who don't respect democracy.

It's like these people have no idea who Hillary Clinton really is.

[Poopadoop]

I agree protesting is kinda dumb at this point. You lost, deal with it.

What's sad to me is that his crying unfair tweet about the protesters got more likes and retweets than both the one about meeting Obama and the one about wishing the marine corps happy birthday.

[JimmyS1985]

All those people who are protesting against Trump are fucking idiots.

Either protest against your means of democracy, or go fucking home. They just look like sore losers who don't respect democracy.

It's like these people have no idea who Hillary Clinton really is.

Last time Bush won in 2000, and as history has told us, Bush was in fact a corrupt and lousy President, the protesters egged the Presidential limousine upon him driving into Washington DC on inauguration day.

I will be utterly shocked if the Trump administration won't somehow eek out more corruption in their time than Nixon, and Bush.

[OngBonga]

Last time Bush won in 2000, and as history has told us, Bush was in fact a corrupt and lousy President, the protesters egged the Presidential limousine upon him driving into Washington DC on inauguration day.

I will be utterly shocked if the Trump administration won't somehow eek out more corruption in their time than Nixon, and Bush.

I'll be utterly shocked if he's allowed to run the country like he wants to.

Much is made about his ego. Well, if his ego is as big as people seem to think, he'll be a great president, because that's the legacy he'll want to leave. He'll want to be remembered for being great.

[surviva316]

Much is made about his ego. Well, if his ego is as big as people seem to think, he'll be a great president, because that's the legacy he'll want to leave. He'll want to be remembered for being great.

Lol, if your handle on logic weren't such consistent shit in this thread, I'd be convinced you were being sarcastic here.

[OngBonga]

Lol, if your handle on logic weren't such consistent shit in this thread, I'd be convinced you were being sarcastic here.

I take no offence from this, considering it comes from a Clinton supporter. I find it somewhat ironic.

[OngBonga]

Lol, if your handle on logic weren't such consistent shit in this thread, I'd be convinced you were being sarcastic here.

I mean honestly, this thread is 95% Trump bashing, and it's like anyone who doesn't think he's the worst human being on the planet is stupid. Even wuf has been accused of racism, purely for agreeing with Trump's immigration policy.

If trying to see good in people is stupid logic, well what can I say? I see more good in Trump than I do Clinton. I see in Trump someone who *might* actually want to make America once again a respected and successful nation. In Clinton, I see someone who wishes to maintain the status quo regarding USA's foreign policy, someone who really does not give a shit about the rest of the world. People outside of America are sick and fucking tired of America's aggressive and arrogant foregin policy. Clinton certainly would not have changed that.

Maybe I'm wrong about Trump, I understand why people are cautious. But I'm not wrong about Clinton. The world just dodged a bullet.

[Savy]

Much is made about his ego. Well, if his ego is as big as people seem to think, he'll be a great president, because that's the legacy he'll want to leave. He'll want to be remembered for being great.

Can you explain to me which president this doesn't apply to?

[OngBonga]

Can you explain to me which president this doesn't apply to?

The career politicians, the ones who are more interested in money and power, such as Bush, what with his business links with Saudi oil barons, such as the Bin Ladens.

Bush really didn't give a fuck that the entire world thought he was stupid and incompetent. He doesn't have an ego like Trump, he just did what he was told and so long as he's making money, sweet.

Obama doesn't have an ego to match Trump either, Obama doesn't give a fuck that his legacy will be an awful healthcare system. He's set up for life now, thanks to his position as president. He'll be earning as much as Clinton does for after-dinner speeches at global banks.

Trump is already very wealthy, it's not like he needs this job to be rich. He's not a career politician. He wants this job so he can make America great again, which makes him respected around the world. Whether he is successful or not is another matter.

That's the difference for me. Like I say, I could be wrong about Trump. But it seems to me that he needs to be successful if he's not to leave his position as a broken man who is ridiculed the world over. He cares about that more than the others, because I believe he is an egomaniac. I think the others were puppets.

[surviva316]

... and by the way, his last Tweet took back his original sentiment and is the more presidential thing to say.

[Poopadoop]

... and by the way, his last Tweet took back his original sentiment and is the more presidential thing to say.

He didn't take it back so much as pretended he never said it (unless I missed something). Which for him is about as good as we can expect I suppose.

[surviva316]

He didn't take it back so much as pretended he never said it.

Well, technically what I said was "he took back the sentiment," which is such a semantically meaningless phrase that it can't really be wrong :P

[Poopadoop]

Well, technically what I said was "he took back the sentiment," which is such a semantically meaningless phrase that it can't really be wrong :P

Ah right. I misread you, sorry.

It's funny though because it's so easy to imagine his staff saying to him 'ok Donald you can have your twitter back now' after the election, and then the next day 'ok Donald, we've changed your password again and only we get to twitter for you until you learn to play nice'.

[bigred]

Wuf,

What's your thoughts on this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us...imes&smtyp=cur

[wufwugy]

Wuf,

What's your thoughts on this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us...imes&smtyp=cur

I tried warning some Trump supporters about this. Cruz was the *true* anti-establishment candidate. His team would have been made up almost entirely of people who gave the corruption of the government a big middle finger.

Having said that, I don't consider this alarming. Trump's claim that he is not beholden to anybody is still very true, and the policy points he made on lobby reform were that he wanted to change the law. Because of the way the law is today, virtually everybody would would be able to benefit Trump in the transition has lobbyist background.

[Poopadoop]

Because of the way the law is today, virtually everybody would would be able to benefit Trump in the transition has lobbyist background.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but how does being a lobbyist qualify you to set up a government department? Seems to me it should disqualify you if anything.

[wufwugy]

Maybe I'm ignorant, but how does being a lobbyist qualify you to set up a government department? Seems to me it should disqualify you if anything.

Right now, of the people who know the interworkings of the federal government, close to all of them have lobby or congressional experience.

The lobby isn't wrong itself. It's an integral aspect of a functioning government. It's private citizens speaking on behalf of other private citizens. We want to have this.

What Trump has discussed is how the law should be changed so that there isn't as great of incentive for corruption between Congress and the lobby. Scroll down for the five-point plan: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-swamp/504569/

I'll be a bit upset if he doesn't put a great deal of effort into this ethics plan. It would be very fantastic reform. However, him using people with lobby experience for his transition isn't hypocritical to this or other things he has said.

[Poopadoop]

Right now, of the people who know the interworkings of the federal government, close to all of them have lobby or congressional experience.

Meh, don't really understand how it all works but it's hard to see how a Verizon lobbyist is going to set up a fair and impartial FCC, for example.

[Savy]

Slagging off protests kind of defeats the point of what protests are about. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not it's kind of important they can do it.

That being said I do find the "not my president" signs and all that funny, do people not realise how democracy works? I don't think I've ever voted for the winning result in an election therefore I can just dismiss everything since I've turned 18.

[OngBonga]

Slagging off protests kind of defeats the point of what protests are about. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not it's kind of important they can do it.

Slagging off protests is a form of protest. Stop trying to stop me from protesting.

I'm not saying they can't do it, just that they are stupid for doing so.

[Savy]

Slagging off protests is a form of protest. Stop trying to stop me from protesting.

I'm not saying they can't do it, just that they are stupid for doing so.

You literally said they should so x or nothing at all. At least read your own posts, I know it's not fun.

[OngBonga]

You literally said they should so x or nothing at all. At least read your own posts, I know it's not fun.

You literally take me too literally.

I said protest about the method of democracy or go home. Words to that effect. The "go home" is not an order, it's a throw away comment that basically means they are wasting their time. You can take it how you like, but if you think that's me telling anyone anything, then you're taking me too literally. It's not like they are actually reading my comments.

I'm not going to start using caveats like "I suggest..." or "these people should..." just to make it easier for you people to figure out what I'm saying. It's up to you to read between the lines. If you don't, well then you're going to continue to take my comments out of context.

[Savy]

You literally take me too literally.

I said protest about the method of democracy or go home. Words to that effect. The "go home" is not an order, it's a throw away comment that basically means they are wasting their time. You can take it how you like, but if you think that's me telling anyone anything, then you're taking me too literally. It's not like they are actually reading my comments.

I'm not going to start using caveats like "I suggest..." or "these people should..." just to make it easier for you people to figure out what I'm saying. It's up to you to read between the lines. If you don't, well then you're going to continue to take my comments out of context.

Literally as in literally or metaphorically?

Protests are almost always a waste of time from mental people moaning about something they don't understand. That isn't the point. Someone once said something along the lines of "I couldn't care less what Katie Price has to say about anything, in fact I probably disagree with a lot of I'd die for her right to do so". The freedom to write and say what you think, to talk about ideas is vastly important.

[Poopadoop]

The freedom to write and say what you think, to talk about ideas is vastly important.

Tbf to Ong, all he said was they were protesting over something stupid. Like if the election had been rigged, they would have had a reason to protest. But their protest was basically 'i didn't vote for him, therefore it's bullshit he won'. And sure they are free to say that, but it's still a stupid thing to say.

[OngBonga]

Literally as in literally or metaphorically?

Protests are almost always a waste of time from mental people moaning about something they don't understand. That isn't the point. Someone once said something along the lines of "I couldn't care less what Katie Price has to say about anything, in fact I probably disagree with a lot of I'd die for her right to do so". The freedom to write and say what you think, to talk about ideas is vastly important.

Right. I mean I agree with you here. I don't mean to say that protesting shouldn't happen if I disagree with the message. But it's hard for me to get on board with those saying "fuck the democratic will of the people". We've been through this with Brexit, people moaning about a democratic event, trying to suggest that MP's should say "fuck you" to the people. That's what's happening with people protesting in America about Trump winning. They're saying "fuck democracy". While I acknowledge they have the right to do this, they are cunts for doing so. That's my point.

I'm not intending to say they shouldn't have that right, far from it.

[OngBonga]

I said that asserting that someone being self-conscious and egotistical necessarily means they'll be good at what they do is shit logic.

Ok you have a point here, only I didn't mean to imply that he would be good (hence me saying a few times I might be wrong about him), just that he'll want to be good, that he'll do more to ensure it happens than someone who doesn't give a fuck about the legacy they leave.

I think he cares more about his legacy than other presidents of my time. Hopefully that's more clear.

[surviva316]

I didn't mean to imply that he would be good

Well, you didn't imply anything, you outright said, "if his ego is as big as people seem to think, he'll be a great president."

In other words, the only condition necessary for him to be a great president is for his ego to be big.

But whatever, if that's not what you meant, I don't need to draw the conversation out. Just wanted to set the record straight that I didn't put words in your mouth.

[OngBonga]

No that's fair enough, I'll grant that it's sloppy language on my part.

In other words, the only condition necessary for him to be a great president is for his ego to be big.

Obviously this is stupid logic. Ego only creates the desire, it doesn't create the ability.

[Poopadoop]

Ego only creates the desire, it doesn't create the ability.

Fwiw, it also depends on what drives his ego. He might care greatly about being a great president, or he might care greatly about how much money he has, or how attractive his wife is. We don't know what makes him feel good about himself.

[a500lbgorilla]

Trump, Brexit, Dueterte, Colombia's vote for peace, whatever else I'm not aware of - what gives? I've been looking around for an explanation. (if you only read one, the first one is probably the best)

Anthropologist right after Trump secured the nom

https://zeroanthropology.net/2016/05...united-states/

Guy on Quora

https://www.quora.com/Are-people-who...usty?srid=iqSO

This back and forth on a reddit sub, the post before this one read

"The (likely false) promise of jobs and a sense of economic security. All these people saying "the freedom to be racist" need to go back and fucking read that link or liberals will continue to lose horribly in important contests."

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDr...y_the/d9t7ix6/

This commentary

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commenta...election-2016/

And this one

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/...son-of-brexit/

I think they're all close to the central issue with the Dems and Hillary dropping the ball so hard. Oh and the pollsters, and the betting markets, and the statisticians, and the media, and pretty much everyone that wasn't trying to Make America Great Again.

When your bubble pops as hard as it did Tuesday night, you assess the debris, not quickly blow up another and hop in. NPR still hasn't learned its lesson. It's still trying to paint Hillary supports as righteous and Trump supporters as racist and what not. This morning they said that Trump supporters prayed in demonstrations, while Hillary supporters protested in demonstration.

It all really crystallizes a lot that I've been hearing from NPR for the past year+. I remember when they were obviously supporting Hillary during the Bernie run, doing things like introducing bernie's comment in an interview where he uh's and um's and then cutting to Hillary's pseudo-response during an upswell of soaring rhetoric during a rally. Whatever, that's all fine and good, I'd think, but I really wish they'd just all admit once in a while that they're all Hillary supporters.

Or in other instances when NPR would constantly talk about racial divides in America and then cut to Shanker Vidantham (wrong spelling) with new discoveries in social science, Shanker? "Oh yes, Steve, what we've discovered is that your prejudice against women/other races/other religions is unconscious and invisible to you always. The only thing there is for you to do is to always work to make amends for the original sins of racism and sexism and whatever else research discovers tomorrow."

It does seem like there's a sense on the left that you tow-the-line lest you become otherized and demonized. And why would you want to be otherized from the side that gets Global Warming? The side that sympathizes with those out of power? The side that cares for the world in 10 generations? The side with the open mind? Especially when the others want to drill-baby-drill, cling to their guns and bibles, and forget the world beyond the horizon?


https://youtu.be/D96LstZ2KEM



I didn't see Trump's support because I didn't look. I trusted clever media to see the world for me and bring it to me as it actually was. And they failed, so utterly and completely, that I see that I was trapped in just like those republicans with their fox news during the last two presidential elections. Sad!

[wufwugy]

Trump, Brexit, Dueterte, Colombia's vote for peace, whatever else I'm not aware of - what gives? I've been looking around for an explanation. (if you only read one, the first one is probably the best)

Anthropologist right after Trump secured the nom

https://zeroanthropology.net/2016/05...united-states/

Guy on Quora

https://www.quora.com/Are-people-who...usty?srid=iqSO

This back and forth on a reddit sub, the post before this one read

"The (likely false) promise of jobs and a sense of economic security. All these people saying "the freedom to be racist" need to go back and fucking read that link or liberals will continue to lose horribly in important contests."

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDr...y_the/d9t7ix6/

This commentary

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commenta...election-2016/

And this one

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/...son-of-brexit/

I think they're all close to the central issue with the Dems and Hillary dropping the ball so hard. Oh and the pollsters, and the betting markets, and the statisticians, and the media, and pretty much everyone that wasn't trying to Make America Great Again.

When your bubble pops as hard as it did Tuesday night, you assess the debris, not quickly blow up another and hop in. NPR still hasn't learned its lesson. It's still trying to paint Hillary supports as righteous and Trump supporters as racist and what not. This morning they said that Trump supporters prayed in demonstrations, while Hillary supporters protested in demonstration.

It all really crystallizes a lot that I've been hearing from NPR for the past year+. I remember when they were obviously supporting Hillary during the Bernie run, doing things like introducing bernie's comment in an interview where he uh's and um's and then cutting to Hillary's pseudo-response during an upswell of soaring rhetoric during a rally. Whatever, that's all fine and good, I'd think, but I really wish they'd just all admit once in a while that they're all Hillary supporters.

Or in other instances when NPR would constantly talk about racial divides in America and then cut to Shanker Vidantham (wrong spelling) with new discoveries in social science, Shanker? "Oh yes, Steve, what we've discovered is that your prejudice against women/other races/other religions is unconscious and invisible to you always. The only thing there is for you to do is to always work to make amends for the original sins of racism and sexism and whatever else research discovers tomorrow."

It does seem like there's a sense on the left that you tow-the-line lest you become otherized and demonized. And why would you want to be otherized from the side that gets Global Warming? The side that sympathizes with those out of power? The side that cares for the world in 10 generations? The side with the open mind? Especially when the others want to drill-baby-drill, cling to their guns and bibles, and forget the world beyond the horizon?


https://youtu.be/D96LstZ2KEM



I didn't see Trump's support because I didn't look. I trusted clever media to see the world for me and bring it to me as it actually was. And they failed, so utterly and completely, that I see that I was trapped in just like those republicans with their fox news during the last two presidential elections. Sad!

That you recognize this so quickly after the election, shows that you are indeed an intelligent person.

[Poopadoop]

That you recognize this so quickly after the election, shows that you are indeed an intelligent person.

The problem is people don't get objective news from anywhere because there's no such thing and never will be. People don't watch 'the news' they watch 'the news they want to hear'. If you liked Clinton you probably watched MSM or liberal youtube channels cause they told you Clinton would win. If you liked Trump you got your news from places that said Trump would win. The truth is, none of those media people knew for a fact who was gonna win because the votes weren't counted yet ffs. People who have the arrogance to think they can read the minds of 100 million people are not smart, they're fools.

For example, when i was watching the Young Turks coverage of the election on youtube, they started out all 'haha Trump's an idiot he'll never win' and i'm thinking 'why are they being so smug? There's lots of ways he could win'.

And sorry, but I don't understand why so many people are shocked by what happened. It's not like she was up 50 points or anything, it was close. Some polls even had Trump winning. Maybe it's just for the reasons I stated above, because they only watch the news they want to see.

Edit: There's also a degree to which I think people tend to assume that a majority of the populace share their own experience and perceptions because they, the person doing the thinking, are 'right'. When you take a step back from that idea and realise that people all have different experiences and different interpretations of what goes on, it's a lot easier to understand how they can think and do things that seem so 'wrong' to you.

[wufwugy]

And sorry, but I don't understand why so many people are shocked by what happened. It's not like she was up 50 points or anything, it was close. Some polls even had Trump winning. Maybe it's just for the reasons I stated above, because they only watch the news they want to see.

I think it is that as well as the media told them that Trump can't win because Trump is Literal Hitler and there's no way America is Evil Enough to elect Literal Hitler.

I attend one of the more conservative and "respectability culture" universities in the country (though it is in the Pac NW, so it can't be that conservative), and we had protest marches the night Trump won. There has since been a surprising amount of crybabying to the administration, students claiming oppression and whatever bullshit. Even though I don't know the exact story, signs are pointing to a dude in one of my classes getting expelled because of an altercation the night of the election. So many people here are shocked. Why? Maybe because they've been hoaxed by the media into thinking Trump is Evil Incarnate, and now they're confronted with the "reality" of their world being Nazi Germany Viet Cong Gulag and don't know how to deal.

[Poopadoop]

I think it is that as well as the media told them that Trump can't win because Trump is Literal Hitler and there's no way America is Evil Enough to elect Literal Hitler.

I attend one of the more conservative and "respectability culture" universities in the country (though it is in the Pac NW, so it can't be that conservative), and we had protest marches the night Trump won. There has since been a surprising amount of crybabying to the administration, students claiming oppression and whatever bullshit. Even though I don't know the exact story, signs are pointing to a dude in one of my classes getting expelled because of an altercation the night of the election. So many people here are shocked. Why? Maybe because they've been hoaxed by the media into thinking Trump is Evil Incarnate, and now they're confronted with the "reality" of their world being Nazi Germany Viet Cong Gulag and don't know how to deal.

I agree there is a fair bit of overreaction going on. A couple of points though:

1. It isn't just the media that portrayed Trump as the bad guy. He did say some things that could be construed as a tad extreme, or at the very least inappropriate.

2. It's hard to argue hypotheticals, but I'm not sure the scene would have been any less ugly had Clinton won. There might have been less than a gracious acceptance from the other side too.

[chardrian]

I rarely, if ever, get pms

[a500lbgorilla]

I rarely, if ever, get pms

The weak never bleed.

[a500lbgorilla]

I will say this for Trump. No one jukes him, it seems. You can't possibly take him lightly and it's hard to know what he'll do and how to use it to your advantage.

[Poopadoop]

The best thing Trump had going for him was Clinton, and vice-versa. Anyone else would have crushed either of them imo.

Trump had the right message but was the wrong person to deliver it. A billionaire who cares about the little guy? Get real. A grown man who can't inhibit himself from saying blatantly stupid things? He wants to be president? Fuck off.

Clinton's message was plain and simple: 'Not him, he's awful'. It may have been true, but if that's the best you can do, you probably ain't gonna win. People want a positive message just as much if not more than they want a positive messenger. Clinton was neither.

The only reason she didn't get completely run over was because Trump kept shooting himself in the foot. Luckily for him he did it so many times people just got desensitized to it, so it no longer mattered when he said something retarded. Because you expected him to.

[wufwugy]

A billionaire who cares about the little guy? Get real.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but there is evidence of this actually being a thing throughout history. It tends to take a very powerful person whose power does not arise from political ties for the little guy to get an advocate at the top.

[Poopadoop]

It may seem counter-intuitive, but there is evidence of this actually being a thing throughout history. It tends to take a very powerful person whose power does not arise from political ties for the little guy to get an adversary at the top.

You're right, there are billionaires out there who care about the little people. But Trump has never been one of them; he's about the least philanthropic billionaire there is.

[OngBonga]

You're right, there are billionaires out there who care about the little people. But Trump has never been one of them; he's about the least philanthropic billionaire there is.

Oh come on. How can you say this with any shred of credibility? Have you met every billionaire on the planet? I haven't, but I'll tell you one characteristic most of them share... what's the opposite of philanthropy?

I'll grant you Bill Gates. There might be a handful of less famous guys out there like him. But the vast majority of rich people who give away money do so for ulterior motives... perhaps because it boosts their profile, or perhaps the "charity" they are donating to is a crooked foundation of the type that the Clintons set up for the purpose of corruption. Very few of them give a flying fuck about the little guy. Trump was probably one of them when all he cared about was business. Now he cares about the little guy because he wants their votes next time around.

I'm not suggesting Trump is a Bill Gates, he has his ulterior motives. But those motives are real, and he's now in a position to make a real difference, instead of merely throwing money at charities to look good.

I do not think for one minute that Trump is the most misanthropist (I looked it up) of the billionaire club, far from it.

[wufwugy]

Ong's point has merit. If Trump's brand is intertwined with America's brand, the argument can be reasonably made that it means he would have a greater incentive to do better for America.

There were times when his brand might not have been intertwined with America's, but I don't think right now is one of them. If America is not a noticeably better place by 2020, he will lose reelection and be considered a joke for the rest of his children's lives.

Contrast this to Obama, who will be considered a victor forever due to being the first black President. Trump is what we want in the White House, a President who has little choice but to perform lest he be a failure.

[Poopadoop]

If America is not a noticeably better place by 2020, he will lose reelection and be considered a joke for the rest of his children's lives.

Contrast this to Obama, who will be considered a victor forever due to being the first black President. Trump is what we want in the White House, a President who has little choice but to perform lest he be a failure.

Couldn't Trump also be considered a victor forever as the man who bucked the system? He could fail miserably in the next four years, throw up his hands and say 'it's rigged, i could't do what i wanted to do', and 9/10th of his supporters will buy it.

[wufwugy]

Couldn't Trump also be considered a victor forever as the man who bucked the system? He could fail miserably in the next four years, throw up his hands and say 'it's rigged, i could't do what i wanted to do', and 9/10th of his supporters will buy it.

I'd say closer to 4/10ths of his supporters would buy it. And the rest of the country? We'd think he's a joke.

If his strategy was to boost his brand without making America great again, he would have been better off losing the election. He would have kept all his fans then. But now that he won, people will be expecting results, because, well, most of us who voted for him did so because of what he said he would do.

[wufwugy]

Two photos I wanted to use for my avatar but didn't because they don't resize well enough. Sad!

[wufwugy]

[OngBonga]

I think there was only a serious risk of Trump supporters kicking up a fuss in the event of a Clinton win if there was evidence of a stitch up.

Which, I'll be honest, I'm still surprised didn't happen. Maybe they knew they needed to fix too many states, it's not like Florida was the difference this time around.

[wufwugy]

I think there was only a serious risk of Trump supporters kicking up a fuss in the event of a Clinton win if there was evidence of a stitch up.

Which, I'll be honest, I'm still surprised didn't happen. Maybe they knew they needed to fix too many states, it's not like Florida was the difference this time around.

What if I told you

That they did fix it, and Trump actually won by 4 more points than the vote tallies show.



Do I believe this? Well......maybe about 5% of me believes it. Maybe 11%. I ain't ruling it out.

[Poopadoop]

What if I told you

That they did fix it, and Trump actually won by 4 more points than the vote tallies show.



Do I believe this? Well......maybe about 5% of me believes it. Maybe 11%. I ain't ruling it out.

Source?

[wufwugy]

Source?

I'm not making a claim or being entirely serious. I only believe what I said about 5-11% of the time.

Does rigging happen? Probably. It would have to be real damn hard for elections to be 100% pure. Was this election rigged? Maybe, but I have no clue.

[OngBonga]

On another note, who the fuck cares what Ben & Jerry's think about the election? They sell ice cream for fuck's sake. How does ice cream have a political opinion? Why does it need sharing?

Next time we have an election, maybe I'll ask my Solero who to vote for.

[OngBonga]

Soros is on that list.

I mean fucking really.

Soros.

If ever you wanted an example of a prize cunt who gives away money for ulterior motives, he's your man.

[Poopadoop]

Soros is on that list.

I mean fucking really.

Soros.

If ever you wanted an example of a prize cunt who gives away money for ulterior motives, he's your man.

Now 85, he has piled huge funds into causes including the fight against Apartheid and the emergence of democracy behind the iron curtain. His Open Society Foundations promote justice, public health and a free press and he's political, too. He backed Barack Obama to the tune of millions and, before that, piled even more cash into trying to oust George W Bush, promising to give away his whole fortune for the cause "if someone guaranteed it". He's now taking on Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose general prosecutor last week banned the charity on the grounds that it posed a threat to state security and the Russian constitution.[/B]

Be honest. You're just mad about the bolded bit.

[OngBonga]

lol "the fight against Apartheid".

I bet he doesn't use that word to decrsibe the current Israeli policy of segregation.

[Poopadoop]

lol "the fight against Apartheid".

I bet he doesn't use that word to decrsibe the current Israeli policy of segregation.

Good point. But Soros isn't the president-elect, Trump is. And it's hard to find evidence that he's given much money to anything. Or maybe he's just so modest he prefers to keep it quiet.

[OngBonga]

Good point. But Soros isn't the president-elect, Trump is. And it's hard to find evidence that he's given much money to anything. Or maybe he's just so modest he prefers to keep it quiet.

I never suggested Trump was a particularly generous person. I just think when we use the word "philanthropist", we have to disect what it actually means. Giving money away doesn't make you a philanthropist. You have to do it because you love humankind. That's what the word literally means. Phile - lover of... anthropy - relating to humans. It has to be done for no reason other than kindness. Then we can talk about philanthropy.

I'd be very surprised if Soros fits the bill there.

Trump, he has his chance now to prove what he's all about.

There's a very good chance that in four years time, I'll hate him. I liked Obama to begin with, he came across as intelligent after the disaster that was Bush. Then again, a dog would've looked smart in comparison.

Now I see Obama as just another puppet. It's not out of the question that Trump will be in that same boat in time.

[Poopadoop]

I never suggested Trump was a particularly generous person. I just think when we use the word "philanthropist", we have to disect what it actually means. Giving money away doesn't make you a philanthropist. You have to do it because you love humankind. That's what the word literally means. Phile - lover of... anthropy - relating to humans. It has to be done for no reason other than kindness. Then we can talk about philanthropy.

Whether or not you think Soros should be on that list is irrelevant, and I don't know why you keep talking about him. We're talking about Trump here.

I know what the word philanthropy means. One way in which philanthropy is judged is by donations to charity. And it's a pretty good measure - what else are you gonna do, count the number of times they've helped a little old lady cross the street? Or helped a neighbour build a fence? By the charity measure, what I said about Trump is wholly credible. He gives away very little money relative to a lot of billionaires.

[OngBonga]

One way in which philanthropy is judged is by donations to charity. And it's a pretty good measure...

Nah it's a shit measure. It basically says rich people can be more philanthropic than poor people, which is obviously bollocks.

[OngBonga]

He gives away very little money relative to a lot of billionaires.

I never argued against this point. I'm arguing that this doesn't make him less philanthropic than others who do give away money. I'm not satisfied that giving away money = loving humankind. Soros is a perfect example. His motive is power, influence. Look at the causes he's given money to... "democracy" in the former Soviet region. Democracy is how foreign people infiltrate and influence governments. They fund those who they want in power, and when they get voted in, they have influence over those people. Why do you suppose we're supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine? Why do you suppose Russia has a problem with that?

Soros is no pilanthropist, not unless we're going to distort the meaning of the word to simply mean "give money away", without any interest in the motive for doing so.

[wufwugy]

The Soros thing is interesting. I certainly don't think he's on the up and up, but I haven't seen compelling enough evidence that he is everything the theorists say. However, I think it's possible they're right. I mean, a month ago, the smart money was that Alex Jones was off his rocker when he said the top government elites are Devil worshipers, but then the Podesta Spirit Cooking Extravaganza happened. Makes you wonder.

[Poopadoop]

So if you say enough crazy shit some of it has to be true?

Lol, if a million Alex Joneses sat on a million youtube channels making up conspiracy theories...

What is the PSCE exactly? I'm ashamed to admit I ignored the Satanic Hillary claims. Though it would explain why her voice sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West.

[wufwugy]

So if you say enough crazy shit some of it has to be true?

My thought is more along the lines of enough of the crazy shit has been proven that maybe some of the other crazy shit isn't so crazy.

What is the PSCE exactly? I'm ashamed to admit I ignored the Satanic Hillary claims. Though it would explain why her voice sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West.

If I recall correctly, Wikileaks showed John Podesta setting up Spirit Cooking dinners with Marina Abramovic. There are videos online of her doing Satanic rituals. There is IIRC a photo in Podesta's house of him having a sculpture of a person whose soul is being consumed by the Devil. It has also been claimed that he has other works of art by an artist (I forget the name of the artist, but I looked up the work and can confirm) who depicts very pedophilic and disturbing stuff. This artist is reported to be one of Podesta's favorites.

I don't recall if the links are any closer to Hillary. I'm pretty sure she and Bill rode the Lolita Express several times though. But frankly I'm not big into this stuff so I don't know much about it.

[Poopadoop]

My thought is more along the lines of enough of the crazy shit has been proven that maybe some of the other crazy shit isn't so crazy.



If I recall correctly, Wikileaks showed John Podesta setting up Spirit Cooking dinners with Marina Abramovic. There are videos online of her doing Satanic rituals. There is IIRC a photo in Podesta's house of him having a sculpture of a person whose soul is being consumed by the Devil. It has also been claimed that he has other works of art by an artist (I forget the name of the artist, but I looked up the work and can confirm) who depicts very pedophilic and disturbing stuff. This artist is reported to be one of Podesta's favorites.

I don't recall if the links are any closer to Hillary. I'm pretty sure she and Bill rode the Lolita Express several times though. But frankly I'm not big into this stuff so I don't know much about it.

That may or may not be true. It's not hard to forge emails. There's no signature on the bottom, it just says 'from X to X'. You can say 'well then how do they forge 20 000 emails?' Well, maybe they use keywords and computers generate plausible sounding emails. Or maybe they have a bigger staff than they let on. Or maybe they have the originals, but they just doctor the ones they want to doctor, which gives it all an air of legitimacy. It's as easy as this:

I support Trump. I think he'll be good for the country.

"Sure sounds like Wuf."

Capitalism is great. We should abolish all government controls and regulations.

"Yep, its Wuf for certain."

I worship Satan. Come over to my house tonight for some pentagrams and free coffee. Oh and if we have time we'll kick some puppies too.

"OMG I can't believe what Wuf is a Satanist who kicks puppies."


Now try to prove you never said that. How are you going to do it? Your name is right there, after all.


This is what in my mind makes Wikileaks difficult to assess. There's no way of disproving anything they post. And though they claim to be interested in uncovering government corruption and be all high and moral, it's possible their motives are less pure than that.

Who's to say the whole thing is not just the trick of some unfriendly foreign power to undermine the West? How do we know Wikileaks is not just a giant scam being perpetrated by Iran or Russia or China? Or maybe Assange and his ilk are just some anarchists who hate government and want to embarrass it.

Don't assume Wikileaks' motives are all pure and simple. Don't assume everything they put up there is true or that it's 'proven' because they're 'quoting from the source'. It might be, but it also might not be partly or wholly made up for other reasons.

[a500lbgorilla]

This is what in my mind makes Wikileaks difficult to assess. There's no way of disproving anything they post.

Imagine if they surreptitiously edited 1 in ever 1000 emails. Maybe no one notices, but if one of their edits catches fire, it could change the game.

Across 50,000 emails, if you make the edits juicy, one might just catch fire.

This is why it's hard to know the world today. It takes leg-work that I'm investing into other avenues. I used to believe some people were investing leg-work into figuring this shit out for me, but now I realize almost everyone is blind.