Politics Thread: Silicon Valley Edition

[Gromnir]

Maybe he's gotten taller as he's gotten older... or recently taken a secret trip to space.

 

 

See, isn't this more fun than talking about ****hole countries and paid off porn stars?

 

Well, that depends on the porn star.

 

Stormy Daniels

is still mind boggling the democrats couldn't beat trump given the legion of skeletons jammed into his closet. yeah, hillary clinton were an unappealing alternative, but c'mon man. had us close to channeling ed harris more than once.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

I love how leftists lost their mind when an actual doctor annouced that Trump is healthy and fit for this term but the next one as well.

 

Most of them lost their minds long before this.

 

[Valsuelm]

im sure Kim Jong-un is the healthiest man in Asia

 

I wouldn't want to be the doctor who told him he wasn't.

[Valsuelm]

Reform with voting machines actually started not long after, but I just remember Florida being the main focal point.

 

To answer your question, you seemed to be making the distinction between 'dirty tricks' like reducing the number of polling places vs actual fraud, so, I was clarifying.

 

The pros and cons of various failsafes/safeguards and their effectiveness can be debated, sure, but the thing is that studies and records have shown voting fraud to be very low (a hundred or so, or less) for national, not in the rampant territory that Republicans claim. Obviously when you get down to the local election level, things are more susceptiblle to being messed with, but on the scale of national elections, it's negligible.

 

I'm curious how you think that local elections are more susceptible to fraud than national elections when the vast majority of all government elections (local through national) occur in the same polling place and are tallied by the same people/system.

 

And you really think that in any national election where millions vote that only '~100 or so, or less' votes are fraudulent? Really?

 

I'd be curious to see a link to a comprehensive and objective study on this subject that actually says this.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Valsuelm

[smjjames]

I meant more that because local (like city level) are more susceptible due to the smaller number of votes actually taking place, ~100 fraudulent votes is much more likely to have an affect on local voting rather than national scale. Of course though, it would matter when it's a close election.

 

 

And you really think that in any national election where millions vote that only '~100 or so, or less' votes are fraudulent? Really?

 

I'd be curious to see a link to a comprehensive and objective study on this subject that actually says this.

 

 

What would you consider a comprehensive and objective study? Theres a whole ton of studies out there.

Edited January 18, 2018 by smjjames

[Malcador]

Maybe he's gotten taller as he's gotten older... or recently taken a secret trip to space.

 

 

See, isn't this more fun than talking about ****hole countries and paid off porn stars?

Well, that depends on the porn star.

Stormy Daniels

Man, not even a good pick. Damn meshback.

[Valsuelm]

I meant more that because local (like city level) are more susceptible due to the smaller number of votes actually taking place, ~100 fraudulent votes is much more likely to have an affect on local voting rather than national scale. Of course though, it would matter when it's a close election.

 

Fair enough. It certainly is safe to say that it generally takes less tampering to throw an election with fewer total votes than one with more. That said, if one wants to throw a larger election (county, state or national), one can focus on a few, or even one, key place(s). Florida 2000 is a somewhat infamous example in national elections, and as previously mentioned wasn't the only place there was evidence of tampering that election.

 

Even the mainstream press acknowledges that many national elections come down to a few key places, i.e. 'Swing States'. And if we consider primaries, similar is often the situation.

 

There's generally not too much of a point in padding team blue numbers in New York or California in a Presidential election in the modern era, if winning is your only goal.  That said, there are still reasons to pad numbers in such places.

 

 

And you really think that in any national election where millions vote that only '~100 or so, or less' votes are fraudulent? Really?

 

I'd be curious to see a link to a comprehensive and objective study on this subject that actually says this.

 

What would you consider a comprehensive and objective study? Theres a whole ton of studies out there.

 

 

One that is comprehensive and objective. I don't think one exists, I'd like to be wrong about that.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Valsuelm

[Elerond]

 

I love how leftists lost their mind when an actual doctor annouced that Trump is healthy and fit for this term but the next one as well.

 

Most of them lost their minds long before this.

 

I find it interesting how doctor actually said that Trump isn't really in good shape (when taking in consideration his weight and medicines that he is taking) but is healthy enough to most likely to survive next 7 years and how that is twisted to story about how Trump is healthy and fit, because his shape was not as bad as some people predicted/hoped. 

 

Also I find it interesting how people say that Trump doesn't exercise even though he spent more time on golf course than in office. Even though golf is not most physically straining sport it demands lots of walking even when one uses mostly golf car to move that it would be strange if Trump does not actually do more physical exercise than your typical 70 year old. Although Trump seems to be much worse shape than my Grandmother who is over ten year older than him, but she was athlete in her younger days (like for example when she was 70 )

[Malcador]

Not sure the economy is booming in the US, or even if what it is now is due to Trump. Is quite a lag between any politician doing anything and the economy changing, usually.

[Malcador]

I guess I have a different idea of what a booming economy is supposed to be. G&S raking in more doesn't really help everyone after all.   The economy in the US improved last year, but it has been doing that for a while (granted I suppose it'd have to after 08-09, heh). 

 

Hm I guess you can attribute people's attitude to him in some way. Saw a report interviewing Trump supporters in some ****hole Midwest town, they said it was a great economy and when the reporter said the boom didn't seem local they responded with faith that it'd get better.

 

But we all know what hope is

Edited January 18, 2018 by Malcador

[Agiel]

The first step down the road to disappointment?

 

At least those Carrier plant workers who were nonetheless laid off have caught wise to Trump. And with the Kelly news of late their ranks will be joined by those hoping for a wall.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Agiel

[smjjames]

@sharp_one re wages: I'd say inconclusive, needs to be given time to actually happen and show up. A few companies announcing wage increases and one-time bonuses doesn't equal overall wage increase.

[Pidesco]

There's the whole Walmart debacle, too.

[HoonDing]

how did Papaderpopulous get to tap this?

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by HoonDing

[smjjames]

how did Papaderpopulous get to tap this?

 

 

 

Your point being....?

Edited January 18, 2018 by smjjames

[Gfted1]

Moley, moley, moley... *pokes with stick*

[BruceVC]

Not sure the economy is booming in the US, or even if what it is now is due to Trump. Is quite a lag between any politician doing anything and the economy changing, usually.

 

 

Sure Malc, sure.

 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/01/17/the-dow-just-hit-an-all-time-high-as-the-gop-tax-plan-fuels-economic-optimism

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/17/us-stocks-dow-earnings-bank-of-america.html

 

Guys I have learnt many things about how to judge the Trump presidency, the best way to understand and rationalize him is to not look at his perceived  success or failures in absolute terms. Meaning he operates in a world of flux and political chaos but he vacillates between good and bad outcomes

 

For example you cannot deny how well the USA economy is doing, my family members who are investment bankers who deal directly with the USA  think things are in fine the USA under Trump. He has reduced certain financial regulation in the USA  and passed a tax bill that reduces corporate tax in the USA. These developments are very good for the global economy and particularly the USA so lets for argument sake give Trump credit for all of this

 

For some of my family that is the only metric of good presidency that concerns them, I dont even try to change there minds about this but they ignore several other questions that matter to me and many other people ...these questions raise real  concerns  and need to be unpacked. For example all USA  citizens need to ask things like

 

• What defines us as Americans, is it all about the strength of the economy or does our moral compass matter
• Do we consider the words of our president relevant to what we believe. In other words do we feel our president can undermine the opinion of  civil society
• Is it reasonable that any president in the USA can publicly and constantly attack the principle of free speech which is a cornerstone of the USA  constitution 

Now the good news is irrespective of what Trump thinks or his supporters believe his presidency cannot and will not destroy or unintentionally erode  any of the  core and substantial  values that the USA  stands for. The midterm elections will be a good bench mark for his presidency but end of the day the Trump presidency is an anomaly to a truly better USA

 

Saying all that its important we absorb and understand certain social and political  lessons to how Trump become president

 

He achieved an amazing victory but it was due to a perfect storm of certain factors and these factors need to be addressed to avoid other Trump presidencies  in the future 

Edited January 18, 2018 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/01/18/new-hhs-civil-rights-division-charged-with-protecting-health-workers-with-moral-objections/?utm_term=.10f039d2a2b0

 

 

While federal officials did not immediately offer details about the new enforcement office, a Conscience and Religious Freedom section appearing Thursday on the HHS site — showing a female health-care worker in a Muslim headscarf — provides some hints. The description of the division's mandate cites abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide as examples of the types of procedures that would be covered. But the language is broad, and health experts said it appears likely to also cover a host of other scenarios, such as treating transgender patients or those seeking to transition to the opposite sex.

HHS said the protections will apply to discrimination or coercion of  “providers who refuse to perform, accommodate or assist with certain health-care services on religious or moral grounds.” They would also apply to training and research activities, according to the department.

[Gfted1]

^Huh, every once in a while we come up with a good idea. Now how will we crap it up?

 

EDIT: Whoops, it appears that I have read that backwards. I thought it was designed to help patients, not a-holes "religious objectors".

[smjjames]

It's pretty obviously aimed at abortion and 'religious freedom' in general, but yay religous freedom police /sarcasm

 

The use of a muslim woman in headscarf seems at odds with the adminstrations general attitude towards muslims because it doesn't seem like you can have that attitude while at the same time appearing to support religious freedom for all faiths and not just christians which it's clearly aimed at.

[BruceVC]

^Huh, every once in a while we come up with a good idea. Now how will we crap it up?

The issue with allowing people to not perform for example certain medical procedures on religious view is where do we draw the line?

 

Would  we allow a doctor to not treat a  person of another religious faith purely because that person could honestly believe that person is a heretic and going to burn in the fires of hell....so why treat them in a medicinal way ?

[HoonDing]

errr you should prolly not trust someone who thinks stock market gains reduce the national debt on anything economical

[smjjames]

^Huh, every once in a while we come up with a good idea. Now how will we crap it up?

 

EDIT: Whoops, it appears that I have read that backwards. I thought it was designed to help patients, not a-holes "religious objectors".

 

 Only problem is that saying religious freedom and morals is too broad and could be used for literally anything, besides, it's clearly aimed at Christians only.

 

 

 

^Huh, every once in a while we come up with a good idea. Now how will we crap it up?

The issue with allowing people to not perform for example certain medical procedures on religious view is where do we draw the line?

 

Would  we allow a doctor to not treat a  person of another religious faith purely because that person could honestly believe that person is a heretic and going to burn in the fires of hell....so why treat them in a medicinal way ?

 

 

Exactly.

[Gfted1]

 

^Huh, every once in a while we come up with a good idea. Now how will we crap it up?

The issue with allowing people to not perform for example certain medical procedures on religious view is where do we draw the line?

 

Would  we allow a doctor to not treat a  person of another religious faith purely because that person could honestly believe that person is a heretic and going to burn in the fires of hell....so why treat them in a medicinal way ?

 

EDIT: Whoops, it appears that I have read that backwards. I thought it was designed to help patients, not a-holes "religious objectors".

[redneckdevil]

Eh the religious doctor thing will also be a blessing with the non vaccination and the ones who don't do medicine for religious reasons.

That is what I see mainly effected since there's no place I've seen on medical records when it comes to religion (why mix up science with fairy tales?) so how would doctor's know if their patient is a heretic or not?

 

California seems to grown some balls in telling businesses they will get fined for voluntary working with ICE, seems to work with ICE they have to come to you and force you and even then the wording is off if the companies are safe then.

 

Also what's up with ESPN not showing or talking about the president at a sports game?

 

Also I'm wondering if "ALL" or even "most" of the crazy **** our president is doing isn't in retaliation of crazy **** states and political parties are doing. Sadly I'm starting to sympathize with the anarchists in just burning it everything to the ground and starting over again does seem to have it's charm when everywhere your looking from the president, the republicans, the Democrats, the media, the public are all going sex nuts and retard strong. Smh.

Edited January 19, 2018 by redneckdevil