Elerond
-
Posts
2622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Elerond
-
I would point out that ability to ask recount of vote is part of same system that made it possible to Trump to win in first place. Recount should be waste of time and money as it should give same result as original count. Speculations that it would not are reason why recount system exist in first place. It is there to ensure people that their will has been listened.
-
When Trump doubts the results, it's a threat to our democracy. When libs and independants do it, it's perfectly ok. I am so over the media shilling for the left. Trump didn't doubt results, he said that he don't accept any other result than his victory, before election. And isn't Jill green, making her something else than liberal (in US political sense, as she don't support all the same things as those that are counted as liberals) or independent (as she is member of a party)? I would point out that telegraph is conservative and pro establishment (which is currently controlled by conservatives) magazine in UK. But anyway at least they are willing to pay recount themselves, and recount should remove at least some distrust towards voting system and it will not change results if there hasn't been foul play. Meaning that where Trump, GOP and Democrats seem to be willing to question integrity of voting system, Jill & co are willing to but their money to check if people should actually be worried. Which in my opinion is much more admirable thing to do than what we have seen from those other doubters.
-
Geez, I wonder if you right....that could be true. It would be a huge upset and very applicable Real spoiler is that
-
https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/us-election-jill-stein-challenge-results-swing-states-ofwisconsin/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter US election: Jill Stein to challenge results in swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania amid claims of cyber attacks I must admit that this years elections have been very entertaining train wrecks to watch, even though they diminish my hope towards democratic governance.
-
I brought it up because it has been mentioned earlier conversations here as example of governmental corruption and as such I compared it to possibilities of governmental corruption that rise from Trump's company's hotels and diplomats telling that they will give Trump money through those hotels in order to get in favorable decisions from him.
-
I am not sure that is true. Lets take for example Finland's diplomatic envoy, every time we sent one to negotiate with new US president. At first it may not look that much as we sent only our president, prime minister, or foreign minister to do the official talk with the US president. But soon one realizes that such diplomatic envoy has actually lots of other people, as there will be assistants, interpreters and body guards for the our country's delegate. And then addition to these there will be several (dozen or so) bureaucrats that will negotiate with us bureaucrats and these bureaucrats will also have assistants. And then this opportunity is also used by some Finnish companies, that want to do business with US government or ensure that business will continue as it is now, who will sent their delegates to negotiate deals to them. And end result you will have envoy that consist of hundred to two hundred people, whom most of will stay in US for week or two. These people will, lets say downplayed estimate, pay 500 dollars per night per person for hotels they stay in, plus additional room services and conference rooms etc.. Which would make about 50k to 200k per day they are there . Totalling to somewhere from 350k to 3 million dollars (three million is more typical than 350k for such trip) for Finnish tax payers. Which is of course usually justifiable because they usually make several billions worth of deals during such trip.
-
I think you mix me to BruceVC, if you think that I am Clinton supporter.
-
The difference is in the transparency. -cut to save space- Yeah less, as private businesses need to keep much less public record who has paid them and how much than charitable organizations. But if one don't see any problems in this kind arrangement, I would call them bit naive if I didn't think that it is just because people aren't really worried as much about governmental corruption as one could think based on what topics were talked before election. As side note there isn't actually holding evidence that Clinton gave preferential treatment for those who gave money for Clinton foundation. When it comes to plain corruption there is actually more holding evidence against Trump, with him settling those law suits against Trump university, but of course as he settled those suits it means that we don't really know for sure even in his case.
-
You realize that if diplomats, corporate lobbyists, etc people start to stay in Trump hotel in order to make favors with president we are speaking hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars going in Trump's pockets in next four years? Because there is lot of those people and they will spent lots of money in those hotels especially if they try to make "nice gesture" towards president of USA. It sounds very much same as doing business in Russia, where people in control are much richer than Trump because of such "nice gestures" etc. things that give companies, diplomats, etc. ability to do anything in Russia.
-
Yes? Sounds reasonable and there is no impropriety that I can see. It's smart for foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump hotel and I seriously doubt there's quid pro quo related to people staying there. If the left uses this as a way to impugn Trump, a man whose own words suffice for that purpose, it'll end up as a losing ploy. However, it is an interesting aside. “'Believe me, all the delegations will go there,' said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a 'Clinton backlash,' but that now it’s the place to be seen." When foreign diplomats and companies give money to The Clinton Foundation it seem to be source of controversy and clear indication that Clinton is corrupt and those moneys were given only to get favors from Clinton. So if giving money to charitable non-profit organization that carry a politician's name puts people's motives under question then one could think that giving money for-profit company owned by a politician would also rise some flags. But it seems that isn't the case then...
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html
-
well, trump is wrong 'bout one thing: the theatre has never been a safe place for those in power. perhaps rosenberg would be better to be speaking 'bout the theatre? *shrug* the theatre has frequent needed be subtle. the theatre has sometimes been subversive. the theatre, sadly, has been a tool of the State or wealthy patrons more often than not, but there is no question the theatre has also been brave, rude, crude, terrible and beautiful. we would weep if we genuine believed there were even a possibility the theatre would need become a safe place for those in power and am glad we live in an age and in a nation where performers can be so open and forthright. if the cast of hamilton offended beyond the pale, then people will stop going to see the show and their message will die. they took a risk. personally, am not believing pence deserved the treatment he received, but am indescribably proud o' an America where nobody is safe from ridicule in the theatre. not tyrants. not businessmen. not journalists. not saints. some will see what happened as evidence o' divisiveness. it is. is also proof o' freedom. thank God. thank America. ... btw, the writers o' hamilton need a history lesson. got the hero and villain largely reversed. HA! Good Fun! I have to say I have never heard the cast of a US theater making such a political statement so openly to a politician ? Has this happened before? For example Finland's independence movement started from theaters in 1800s. If you go to beginning of theater as we now it in ancient Greek you find that lots of their plays had political message and were aimed towards those in power. Also there are lots of examples from the history where theater crews have imprisoned or even killed because they offended those in power.
-
Image searching for "liberal cuck" returned this: I figure that explains previous comments much better than an in-depth discussion of his politics ever would. edit: I didn't even enter his name I think whoever made that picture mistook Trudeau to Jesus
-
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799974635274194947 Trump wants safe spaces and trigger warnings
-
I fervently hope the right in Europe steamrolls over the sycophants that have no respect for their individual culture. Each country there is a treasure, not something to be sacrificed in the name of multiculturalism. The right you are speaking about don't respect countries individual cultures either. They seem to be more into inventing new cultures that don't seem to be based on any existing culture. In other words they want to destroy European cultural heritage even more than biggest supporters of multiculturalism, just so that they can get in power.
-
Woman with plastic fork chased sword-wielding robber Fork is mightier than sword
-
I am too tired to have this argument ....you win for now But why would you think the EU collapsing is a good thing...can you name just 2 things? It will add Russia's, China's, Iran's, Saudi Arabia's, India's political, military and economical power. It will European's poorer. It will decrease USA's political and military power. So if one supports these things, then EU collapsing can be seen as good thing. But I don't see why France would want to leave EU as all the countries they don't like in the union seem to select governments that are against EU and are on path to leave the union. And Facebook should ban all fake news regardless of the source, so that journalists would again be forced to be journalists and write real news.
-
No many political commentators have admitted they were wrong and want to do a better job around these types of events in the future ....the media is self-regulating volo, no need to worry Good one Bruce. Obola could do no wrong, and Trump can do no right. So you two can continue your old debate, this time just on different sides. :D
-
That picture seems to be more against Trump than in support of him. As one of the reasons why people say they supported Trump was that he is against political correctness and this picture implies that first three members in his administration have been selected because of political correctness and not because of said people's abilities.
-
What I see, people are demanding that democrats will obstruct Trump with every conceivable way like republicans did for Obama (according to them). Any sort cooperation or suggestion of cooperation is seen as betrayal. So next four years are probably at least as entertaining as previous eight.
-
This is said to be legitimate, but I don't know for sure, but it is bit funny regardless
-
Fox news still hasn't fully accepted Trump. That should tell all. Don't get all OCD on me. I'm not going to pick straws. Of course media outlets are going to be negative, that's their m.o, it's not the same as openly supporting a candidate as is most often done. You're either lying to yourself or out of touch if you don't see the difference. I would in counter claim that you are lying to yourself if you really believe that Trump don't have support of media outlets behind him. Media outlets know how to read their audience and they know that it is divided. Like where you see that Fox don't full heartily support Trump, you can also see media outlets that attacked him during elections now writing articles about people coming together in name of the country etc. pieces meant to make people that are against Trump, less against him and court those who supported Trump continue to read/watch/listen them. Media is excellent in the ways how they manipulate people and their goal is alway foremost their own profits.
-
Is there anywhere where you can get pure numbers on each state without having to select it individually in a nice graph? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VAcF0eJ06y_8T4o2gvIL4YcyQy8pxb1zYkgXF76Uu1s/htmlview Although whoever made the sheet has not updated it with final numbers
-
Hillary was an outrageously bad candidate but still nearly won. The large majority of the country still votes the party line no matter how awful their candidate. In general, the independents bounce back and forth every 8 years after they finally get tired of the failed promises of the current administration or are simply bored with it and want a different flavored bubblegum. But, I will say that Trump's victory, without any media support whatsoever, is pretty substantial. Will it revolutionize anything? Probably not, but it's still unique, to say the least. Trump had media's support. There wasn't day during his campaign that media didn't speak about him. Media talked about him so much that his nearly non-existing plans to realize his promises were washed away by nonsensical sensationalist headlines. His lack of candidates in government jobs was realized after he won his campaign. And press successfully made people forgot what kind policies people in Trumps inner circle have, people who will most likely play part in new government. So some of the media smeared him and some plainly supported him but nobody seem to actually really questioning his ability to lead the country, which made him equal to Clinton when it come in choice as leader and then people had to only decide which one they hate more. In comparison to someone like Gary Johnson, Trump had media support, but I didn't expect to have to explain. Both the left wing and right wing media outlets were out against Trump from the start, and as others have pointed out, they're still slow to get why Trump was elected, doubling down on pro right or left talking points. No such thing as bad news fits here. It's like the more the elites tried to slam Trump, the more the independents supported him. So yeah, he won without major media backing of any sort, which was my point. But he had major media outlets that backed him, they didn't necessary promote him, but they did their best to villainize Clinton. Media outlets published articles after articles, how Clinton is traitor, criminal, distrustful, corrupt, old, sick, weak, woman, bad speaker, robot, lizard person, and so on. So major media didn't necessary promote Trump, but they did excellent job to make Trump look like lesser evil next to Clinton. Which is clear media backing even though it gives media houses excuse that they didn't directly supported Trump. When you add to this the fact that these same media outlets constantly release articles about Trump and his candidacy, and doing so making sure that people are aware that Trump exist and is the option for the Clinton. Of course there was also media organizations that demonized Trump and advocated Clinton as the lesser evil option, which is big part why there is now people protesting in the streets against Trump. Although Clinton did gather more media outlets that were willing to say that they support her presidency than Trump.
-
Clinton seem to have made history, by becoming as candidate that won with highest margin the popular vote and still lost the election. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/clintons-substantial-popular-vote-win.html?_r=1 By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
