Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Well, it looks like that "non-existent" voter registration fraud is an actual thing, and apparently pretty rampant. So, if over 1,000 people ADMIT to improper voter registration in just 8 counties, what would that correlate to across the nation?
My favourite bit is when he says the article he's writing is based on a report that he helped write. That's like quoting yourself in your sig.
Anyhow, I'm at a loss as to how this relates to requiring photo ID. The problem actually stems from people who registered to vote as they were getting a driver's license, which is a piece of photo ID.
This is more related to issues of controlling the voter roll, and while it's a political issue it isn't because people don't want the roll maintained, nor have I seen anyone say the roll is well maintained. The politicisation there is because it so many efforts to purge the roll are overtly political, and target people likely from the other side of politics.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Well, it looks like that "non-existent" voter registration fraud is an actual thing, and apparently pretty rampant. So, if over 1,000 people ADMIT to improper voter registration in just 8 counties, what would that correlate to across the nation?
Lets see...
3144 counties, divide by 8, assume magically that 1000 is a fairly uniform numbere cause why not that's what we're doing, so that comes out too...
399000 votes, assuming 100% turn out when there is no evidence that these people are actually voting, only that they are registered because they have driver's licenses.
You seem to be confused. The argument isn't that there is zero voter fraud. The argument is that there is no evidence it is impacting election outcomes in a way that is concerning.
This is more related to issues of controlling the voter roll, and while it's a political issue it isn't because people don't want the roll maintained, nor have I seen anyone say the roll is well maintained. The politicisation there is because it so many efforts to purge the roll are overtly political, and target people likely from the other side of politics.
I'm actually pretty sure a lot of people have proposed that tightening voter rolls is a more effective means of dealing with potential fraud that will have zero impact on the ability of citizens to vote.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/04 05:33:57
Well, it looks like that "non-existent" voter registration fraud is an actual thing, and apparently pretty rampant. So, if over 1,000 people ADMIT to improper voter registration in just 8 counties, what would that correlate to across the nation?
Lets see...
3144 counties, divide by 8, assume magically that 1000 is a fairly uniform numbere cause why not that's what we're doing, so that comes out too...
399000 votes, assuming 100% turn out when there is no evidence that these people are actually voting, only that they are registered because they have driver's licenses.
You seem to be confused. The argument isn't that there is zero voter fraud. The argument is that there is no evidence it is impacting election outcomes in a way that is concerning.
This is more related to issues of controlling the voter roll, and while it's a political issue it isn't because people don't want the roll maintained, nor have I seen anyone say the roll is well maintained. The politicisation there is because it so many efforts to purge the roll are overtly political, and target people likely from the other side of politics.
I'm actually pretty sure a lot of people have proposed that tightening voter rolls is a more effective means of dealing with potential fraud that will have zero impact on the ability of citizens to vote.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you didn't actually read the article. It actually stated that 200 of those 1000 people have ALL READY voted in this election. Also, as quoted in the article, a Repulican was narrowly defeated in Virginia by 165 votes. It looks like that could very well swing the election. Heck, wasn't the 2000 Presidential election decided by only a couple hundred votes (depending on how it was counted, as they counted it 8 different ways)
Also these are only the people that ADMITTED they registered fraudulently. Somehow I doubt there is 100% self-outing on this issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 06:52:33
cuda1179 wrote: I'm going to go ahead and guess that you didn't actually read the article. It actually stated that 200 of those 1000 people have ALL READY voted in this election.
Presidential elections don't swing on 80,000 votes, especially not in the electoral college.
Also, as quoted in the article, a Repulican was narrowly defeated in Virginia by 165 votes.
1000 people in 8 different counties won't make that happen.
Are we worried about 80k people, presumably nationally, voting in a presidential election? The closest recent election was JFK and Nixon in 1960, decided by .2% of the popular vote (~120,000) in an election with 70 million votes cast (compare to 2012's 125 million). You'd need a race closer than any in US history for that number to even remotely matter, assuming that the messed up voter districts even allow them to make any difference (the closest being Garfield-Hancock in 1880 with a .1% difference).
Heck, wasn't the 2000 Presidential election decided by only a couple hundred votes (depending on how it was counted, as they counted it 8 different ways)
It would require a level of analysis the posted article doesn't support. You'd first have to determine in which voting districts the election was tipped (which is kind of a can of worms), and then further determine how many people in those districts voted but weren't supposed to, which could be done with the right time and effort but you'd be unable to know until after an election has concluded.
Also these are only the people that ADMITTED they registered fraudulently. Somehow I doubt there is 100% self-outing on this issue.
Sounds like people who aren't exactly criminal master minds, and are probably just poorly informed about what they're able and not able to do. Either way, tighten up the rolls and the problem is solved. There was a thread on the OT earlier this year about some outside watchdogs commenting on the poor state of voter rolls in most US states, so sounds to me like time has been wasted that could have been spent fixing an substantial complaint in a meaningful way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/04 07:08:32
cuda1179 wrote: I'm going to go ahead and guess that you didn't actually read the article. It actually stated that 200 of those 1000 people have ALL READY voted in this election.
I read it and I found this line particularly hilarious:
Some Idiot wrote:This is in a state where Republican Mark Obenshain lost his race for Attorney General in 2013 by 165 votes. Mark Herring, the Democrat who beat him, has distinguished himself by bringing Eric Holder-style lawlessness to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I mean, that's just pants-on-head crazy right there. I mean, Virginia has considerably lower crime than all or our neighboring states and our crime rate has decreased significantly since 2008. According to 2014 statistics, the newest available, Virginia has the 46th lowest violent crime rate nationwide.
Virginia may be a lot of things, but we definitely aren't "lawless."
Also, as quoted in the article, a Repulican was narrowly defeated in Virginia by 165 votes. It looks like that could very well swing the election. Heck, wasn't the 2000 Presidential election decided by only a couple hundred votes (depending on how it was counted, as they counted it 8 different ways)
Also these are only the people that ADMITTED they registered fraudulently. Somehow I doubt there is 100% self-outing on this issue.
I think you need to understand the source of this article and "study." It was done by a guy who has made a living scaring white people into thinking that brown people are threatening them at polling stations and convincing them that black people are the real racists in this country.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Well, it looks like that "non-existent" voter registration fraud is an actual thing, and apparently pretty rampant. So, if over 1,000 people ADMIT to improper voter registration in just 8 counties, what would that correlate to across the nation?
You're confusing different kinds of voting fraud. The virtually nonexistent kind is the kind that ID requirements can prevent: where someone who is not registered to vote pretends to be a person that is registered to vote, which is much harder if you have to provide a valid ID instead of just stating your name. It is theoretically possible, but there's no evidence that it happens at any meaningful rate. IIRC the proven cases are on the level of single-digit incidents per year, for the entire country. The article, on the other hand, is talking about fraud involving people who shouldn't be allowed to vote successfully registering to vote. The often-criticized ID laws can't do anything to stop this kind of fraud since the person checking IDs will see a legal voter whose ID matches their registration. In fact, the article even explicitly states that ID laws can not solve this problem.
Now, this incident does suggest that more effort should be spent on ensuring that only legal voters are able to register, but that's a much more complicated subject and one that has nothing to do with the blatant corruption and election rigging of ID laws.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It's a month old but I've only just seen it... this is Anne Coulter having a whinge about the media has reported that Trump said and did things that Trump said and did;
"...this is after the most relentless, ferocious, unified media attack on Donald Trump as certainly I've seen in my lifetime and I've read about what they did to Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater and I think it's worse than that."
Uh, Miss Coulter, pointing out that the media has only been this hostile to the three most infamous politicians of the post-war era is an argument in favour of an activist media. It's actually a stronger argument for a partisan media than I've seen anyone on the left make.
But rhetorical fail aside, I think this goes to show how far off the reservation some of the right wing pundits have wandered. I mean, even among the conservatives who've convinced themselves that Goldwater, Nixon and McCarthy were the victims of some meanie liberals, they would understand that it's still a pretty bad idea to put Trump in that company. But it shows what happens inside these echo chambers, when you surround yourself with people as crazy as you, you lose track of the reality that most people think Goldwater, Nixon and McCarthy weren't shining beacons of US democracy.
I know Coulter was always an extreme outliar, and the audience for her crazy has been in decline for a long time now, but she's still an example of a type. Hannity is not that different, and he's a major player in right wing punditry. So it remains a reasonable example of what's happened to US conservatism.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm going to go ahead and guess that you didn't actually read the article.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you didn't read my point that nothing in any republican voter ID law would resolve this. I'm going to go a step further and guess you didn't even consider that for yourself. It's just all voter fraud, evidence, all the same, rah rah fight the left.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Are we worried about 80k people, presumably nationally, voting in a presidential election? The closest recent election was JFK and Nixon in 1960, decided by .2% of the popular vote (~120,000) in an election with 70 million votes cast (compare to 2012's 125 million). You'd need a race closer than any in US history for that number to even remotely matter, assuming that the messed up voter districts even allow them to make any difference (the closest being Garfield-Hancock in 1880 with a .1% difference).
Except that presidential elections aren't decided on the popular vote. They are decided by the electoral college, and in a situation where a single state can flip one way or the other and determine an electoral college winner, there's been a very close election - 2000. In that election Florida was decided by around 500 votes, and that state put Bush over 270 EV.
You probably won't see the right wing mention that too often in the context of keeping a decent electoral roll, though, because in the year before the election Florida went through and cleaned its roll, but ended up removing many names incorrectly (they often had names similar to felons). As there were few instances where people were informed that they were removed from the electoral roll, they weren't able to appeal or get the decision corrected. Somewhere around 50,000 people were wrongfully removed from the electoral roll.
So yeah, it's all well and good to talk about the need to manage the electoral roll. But people need to go in to that with their eyes open, and know how political parties like to do these kinds of things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 07:37:13
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Or alternatively its statements not supported by facts not in evidence your honor. I get the same arguments from the other side. Admittedly with HRC and DT running they are completely interchangeable now.
I must just be seeing double tonight, there were two posts earlier.
ON that note, I discovered asomething called XO quality brandy. Nice!
But speaking of facts like "Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala" isn't a insult or demeaning, it's a fact. It's not droll, It's just the reality of it.
Unless they brain scanned everyone in the US, it means what we call buppkiss.
Someone doesn't understand how representative samples, statistics, and studies work. You do NOT need to study everyone for a study to be valid.
Someone does, and disputes that two studies mean anything in the scientific community. Additionally, what the studies say and what others say about the studies frequently are not the same. I am not a scientist. I am not claiming to be a scientist, but again extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof with wide samples and easily replicable results. Further, those studies actually say vs. how nattering nabobs spin it are typically very different. The Psych Today article (thats just cute to begin with) is the poster boy for that sort of nonsense.
It also flies in the face of culture. The older you are, the more conservative you tend to be (or more precisely, you become conservative or stay where you are and US society becomes more liberal). Its not a physical thing (unless its an old people thing).
But please, continue to attack conservatives as some sort of p[physical monsters, not even realizing that its not conservatives that are voting for Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: HRC could be revealed to bathe in the blood of maidens, a la Countess Bathory, and she would still be of better experience, temperment and gravitas to lead the Free World than Trump.
Indeed I'd vote for her. Even Russia would think twice.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/04 11:21:55
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Someone does, and disputes that two studies mean anything in the scientific community. Additionally, what the studies say and what others say about the studies frequently are not the same. I am not a scientist. I am not claiming to be a scientist, but again extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof with wide samples and easily replicable results. Further, those studies actually say vs. how nattering nabobs spin it are typically very different. The Psych Today article (thats just cute to begin with) is the poster boy for that sort of nonsense.
It also flies in the face of culture. The older you are, the more conservative you tend to be (or more precisely, you become conservative or stay where you are and US society becomes more liberal). Its not a physical thing (unless its an old people thing).
But please, continue to attack conservatives as some sort of p[physical monsters, not even realizing that its not conservatives that are voting for Trump.
the study did not make any extraordinary claims, just some rather ordinary ones.
and speaking of claims without proof, I doubt you even have a study that says we become conservative as we age. Just because a lot of old americans are conservatives doesn't mean they started off as liberal. Otherwise think of bernie sanders, if he's conservative now think of how liberal he must have been when he was young
I think the biggest resistance to seeing the truth of the studies is that many people still think they're conservatives because being a liberal is considered a dirty word in the states. I've seen some of the stances you've taken frazz, and you are a liberal. Being a libertarian also gets you leaning towards liberal. Especially when you consider this definition:
"not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted"
contrasted with conservative: " not liking or accepting changes or new ideas"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 12:31:56
the study did not make any extraordinary claims, just some rather ordinary ones. ***The actual studies may have. I'm not interested enough to research them. The Psych Today arguments are just BS.
and speaking of claims without proof, I doubt you even have a study that says we become conservative as we age. ***Oh contraire. I have carefully studied the issue. Admittedly my sampling is limited but I think its representative. As a control, I did not include all the voices in my head. This is patricularly difficult when they all hear a noise and start barking at the same time...
Just because a lot of old americans are conservatives doesn't mean they started off as liberal. Otherwise think of bernie sanders, if he's conservative now think of how liberal he must have been when he was young. ***I think you're misperceiving part of my statement. Often they don't become more conservative, but society becomes more liberal and they don't change.
I think the biggest resistance to seeing the truth of the studies is that many people still think they're conservatives because being a liberal is considered a dirty word in the states. ***No. 1. I am leery of social studies as the scientific methodology is, shall we say, often less concrete than STEM studies. 2. Again, while the study may say one thing, what the advocates using it are extrapolating are completely different. 3. These items were provided by third party sources (Salon, Slate, Politico) pushing an agenda, which in this case is the standard issue attack. I would be no different if a Republican popped up with studies about "liberals."
I've seen some of the stances you've taken frazz, and you are a liberal. Being a libertarian also gets you leaning towards liberal. Especially when you consider this definition: "not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted" ***The truth is out! I am a budgetary conservative, socially liberal, and absolute fanatic about the Bill of Rights (all of them, watch me foam at the mouth about quartering redcoats YARGHHHH!!!)
contrasted with conservative: " not liking or accepting changes or new ideas" ***New ideas can be good but they can also be bad. Antivaxxers, stuff not made in the US, and Trump are new things that are bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 12:53:23
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote: I wonder if there is a study into the brain structure of people who make off topic posts on internet forums.
I'm afraid that a YouTube video about those people is all we are going to get.
a youtube video is not a study, especially if it was made by rabid feminists.
For those with kids or in college, it could be a good idea for a thesis. In the states you could probably get a huge grant to research it and use the money to fund your hobby
gorgon wrote: LOL. That's like saying that the screwdriver has made the wrench obsolete. Very different tools with very different strengths.
You know what still works great in the right application? Direct mail.
No, because the argument wasn't that one has replaced the other. The argument was that one no longer works as it used to. That other kinds of advertising and marketing are developing at the same time that TV is in decline is related, but not a key part of the decline of TV.
It is more like noting that WWI saw the decline of cavalry as a major battlefield element and at the same time saw the tank develop as a major element. The decline of one and the rise of the other are related, but it wasn't a case of one replacing the other.
Comparing TV advertising to the horse and social media advertising to the tank is a *preposterous* analogy. There are no horses left on the battlefield.
TV advertising is far from obsolete. It still has its place in marketing and will have one for long time. There are reasons why companies as marketing-smart as McDonald's still make so many television ad buys. Hint -- it isn't because of inertia like you seem to be suggesting. Again, direct mail, which would probably be sticks and stones in your battlefield analogy, can still kick @$$ in the right application. Social media advertising has its place in the toolbox, but is generally overrated.
I'm not going to go round and round on this with you, and it's off-topic anyway. But sometimes people actually work in a given field and have a clue what they're talking about.
sebster wrote: It's a month old but I've only just seen it... this is Anne Coulter having a whinge about the media has reported that Trump said and did things that Trump said and did;
"...this is after the most relentless, ferocious, unified media attack on Donald Trump as certainly I've seen in my lifetime and I've read about what they did to Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater and I think it's worse than that."
I've read about what they did to Joe McCarthy
what they did to Joe McCarthy
Joe McCarthy
As in HUAC Joe McCarthy? She thinks fething Joe McCarthy, with his magic briefcase containing all the evidence as long as you don't ask to look at it, was subjected to unsubstantiated attacks? The Joe McCarthy who ruined peoples lives by way of unsupported attacks against their character and politics, threatening their friends and co-workers and neighbours in the same way in order to get "evidence"?
Jesus Christ...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 14:26:20
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Incidentally, Donald Trump was highly influenced in politics by Roy Cohn, a hardball lawyer who was one of Joe McCarthy's right-hand men during his witch trials.
A Town Called Malus wrote: As in HUAC Joe McCarthy? She thinks fething Joe McCarthy, with his magic briefcase containing all the evidence as long as you don't ask to look at it, was subjected to unsubstantiated attacks? The Joe McCarthy who ruined peoples lives by way of unsupported attacks against their character and politics, threatening their friends and co-workers and neighbours in the same way in order to get "evidence"?
Jesus Christ...
Anne Coulter is an entertainer, she takes provocative positions for the same reasons some comics make provocative jokes: it gets attention. She makes a lot of hay with a simple theory: if some people really, really hate liberals, then they'll like somebody that is hated by liberals. She works to create a reality in which virtually anything that runs against her worldview is the result of some sort of massive liberal conspiracy. Since McCarthy was actually brought down by a liberal coalition, obviously, he must have been telling hard truths that the liberal hate machine had to silence. It's an interesting way to make a living.
Arguably, though, we're currently in, or getting very close to, McCarthyism 2.0 now, so it isn't really a surprise that he is being defended.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Commu...oops, Muslim faith?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 15:14:32
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
And Republicans will argue the New Mccarthyism is coming from the left from speech codes, PC, trigger warnings, and the flippant accusation of racism as a first response to any disagreement.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
For weeks, backers of Republican nominee Donald Trump have hyped the tantalizing possibility that the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks was on the verge of publishing a set of documents that would doom Hillary Clinton’s chances in November.
“@HillaryClinton is done,” longtime Trump associate Roger Stone tweeted Saturday. “#Wikileaks.”
The group’s founder, Julian Assange, did nothing to dampen the enthusiasm, suggesting to Fox News hosts that his scoops could upend the race with documents “associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles, some quite interesting.”
[Julian Assange won’t say whether a foreign government was involved in DNC email leak]
The announcement by WikiLeaks that it would host a major news conference Tuesday only seemed to confirm that the bombshell was ready to burst. The pro-Trump, anti-Clinton media world rippled with fevered speculation.
But if an October surprise about the Democratic nominee really is coming, it will have to wait a little longer.
Over the course of two hours Tuesday — with the world’s media and bleary-eyed Trump die-hards across the United States tuning in — Assange and other WikiLeaks officials railed against “neo-McCarthyist hysteria,” blasted the mainstream press, appealed for donations and plugged their books (“40 percent off!”).
[Trump may like these remarks made by Putin about the U.S.]
But what they didn’t do was provide any new information about Clinton — or about anything else, really.
The much-vaunted news conference, as it turned out, was little more than an extended infomercial for WikiLeaks on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of its founding.
Assange, whose group released a trove of hacked Democratic National Committee documents on the eve of the party’s convention this summer, breezily dismissed the idea that anyone should have expected any news at his news conference.
[Snowden and WikiLeaks clash over leaked Democratic Party emails]
“If we are going to make a major publication about the U.S., we wouldn't do it at 3 a.m.," Assange said at one point, referring to the Eastern daylight start time for the event.
That didn’t go over well with Trump backers who had stayed up through the night, thinking they’d be watching live the unveiling of the death blow to the Clinton campaign.
Assange, as it turns out, had taken a page from Trump’s own playbook by drawing an audience with a tease, only to leave those tuning in feeling that they’d been tricked.
Infowars, the pro-Trump and virulently anti-Clinton media vehicle launched by Texas radio host Alex Jones, had touted the WikiLeaks news conference as “historic” and promised that “the Clintons will be devastated.”
Before Assange took the stage, Jones — who broadcast through the wee hours of the American morning — told viewers and listeners he was so excited he was worried his heart couldn't stand it.
But by the end, Jones realized he’d been played — or in his words, “#wikirolled.”
He wasn’t the only one. Sleep-deprived Trump backers and Hillary-haters all across the country took to Twitter to convey their displeasure.
But perhaps those waiting for an October surprise shouldn’t lose all hope just yet. Or at least, that was the message from Assange, who spoke via video link from the Ecuadoran embassy in London, where he’s been holed up for the past four years as Swedish authorities seek his extradition on sexual assault charges.
He promised to reveal documents every week for the next 10. He said some will have a direct bearing on the U.S. election.
“We think they’re significant,” he coyly informed his worldwide audience.
But what will they reveal? And when will they come? Assange wouldn’t say.
Karla Adam contributed to this report from London.
The much-vaunted news conference, as it turned out, was little more than an extended infomercial for WikiLeaks on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of its founding.
Frazzled wrote: And Republicans will argue the New Mccarthyism is coming from the left from speech codes, PC, trigger warnings, and the flippant accusation of racism as a first response to any disagreement.
I don't think the right wing has been shy about making that argument. The grass roots of the right wing has, in general, become very adept at accusing the left of virtually any anti-social behavior, from fascism, to racism, to homophobia, etc.
It's a shame, because issues like speech codes at campuses really gets to the heart of our society: to what extent are individual freedoms inalienable when they limit the freedoms of others? That's a hard question, and one that's basically ignored by frankly ridiculous demands by the left, and frankly insufferable outrage by the right. Like nearly anything else, we all generally agree that having rules for conduct (including speech) in an educational environment is probably for the best, but we get so lost in the weeds, it gets dumb.
As for accusations of racism... I'm tired of people making that the first argument, but I'm also tired of the refusal by many on the right to recognize that racism exists and that it hurts people. The reality is that this nation has a lot of rules, policies, and procedures that have a sharply disparate impact on various minorities. They're not all racist, but when you realize that they hurt one race way more than another, and decide that's okay, it's unjust.
So, unlike during the height of McCarthyism, there's a robust, if hamfisted, debate about all of these things.
My experience today at the airport, going through the security line:
1) couple in front of me: "these machines really creep me out, but they keep us safe so I guess it's worth it."
2) at the same time the only Arab family in line randomly gets pulled for screening as they pad down the 4 year girl.
3) at the same time FedEx drops of a big package, TSA signs for it, takes it, walks past the X-ray machines and sniffer and carries it into the sterile zone.
One correction: the right calls people commies. The left calls them fascists / nazis.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: One correction: the right calls people commies. The left calls them fascists / nazis.
You haven't spent enough time around the dark corners of the internet then. It's a pretty common trope to associate both Islam and feminism with fascism/hate.
There are even whole books written about "liberal fascism," taking the fairly wide definition of "fascists" to mean "organized donkey-caves."
I hate protest culture. A lot. But even I think some of the complaints that people make about the form of protest are really about the content, and are really efforts to ignore the patently obvious disparities in this country between various demographics, most notably white vs. black. Most people really don't want to think about how a black man with a bachelor's degree earns about as much as a white man with a high school diploma, or the fact that a median white family has over $100k in wealth, while black and Latino families had a median wealth of $7k and $8k. It's unpleasant, because we want to think of our system as fair. But part of being adult is facing hard truths. And yes, this means understanding that no amount of welfare will create wealth among the poor, and it also means that people of color will need to adopt middle class behaviors and values if they want to succeed in a middle class world, just like white do (or don't). But I think we can do more to be more inclusive, and we should.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 17:40:58
sebster wrote: It's a month old but I've only just seen it... this is Anne Coulter having a whinge about the media has reported that Trump said and did things that Trump said and did;
She's still alive? I thought her relevance fizzled out some time ago.
"...this is after the most relentless, ferocious, unified media attack on Donald Trump as certainly I've seen in my lifetime and I've read about what they did to Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater and I think it's worse than that."
Joe McCarthy? I know she idolizes the dude because of her dad, but seriously: the guy was regarded as a stupid prick by his own Party in his own time.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
sebster wrote: It's a month old but I've only just seen it... this is Anne Coulter having a whinge about the media has reported that Trump said and did things that Trump said and did;
She's still alive? I thought her relevance fizzled out some time ago.
She's alive and well...her latest book is called "In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!" (and this is not a joke)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/04 17:38:24
