Election 2016

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:55 am

Dr_Noface wrote:Should we expect a Trump-Putin teamup against China?

That would be a strange thing to expect, as Russia's current position is to be buddies with China.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:20 pm

Tussock, stop fucking talking and learn to read a map. Do I have to color in the lines it for you like in all your favorite books before you can understand it, you mouthbreathing dipshit? There is simply no excuse for why you're still talking.

There are these things called the Spratfly Islands. They probably have some resources in them, and as such people want them, but no one really has any particularly legitimate claims to them because they are a bunch of empty rocks in the middle of the sea. There's no significant history there. When the Philippines draws the magical claims band which extends from their coast, they draw it large enough to cover most of the Spratfly Islands. And guess what? They don't have to go very far to do it, because the Spratfly Islands are right fucking next to the Philippines. When Malaysia draws their magical claims band, they draw it large enough to cover the southern part of the Spratfly islands. They also don't have to go very far to do it, because, again, they are right fucking there. When Vietnam draws their magical claims band, they draw it large enough to cover the western part of the Spratfly islands. They kind of sort of have to go pretty far to do it, but nowhere near as far a China, and they still only end up claiming half the island chain. It's kind of dickish, sure, but it's orders of magnitude away from the dickishness of China.

When China draws their magical claims line, it stretches south along the Vietnam coast, past the spratfly islands, stops shy of the Malaysia coastline, follows it back north along the Philippines coastline, and envelops Taiwan completely. Despite being the country furthest from the Spratfly Islands (by a large margin), they claim 100% of them, and then they also claim a bunch more past that, because they are not actually arguing solely for control of the Spratfly Islands. They are arguing for control of the entirety of the South China Sea. That Chinese military base we keep talking about? It's in the southern half of the island chain. Reminder, incase your geography is as asstastic as it seems: China is to the north. China is building military bases in the furthest part of a disputed island chain from which they are already the furthest claimaint.

Any time - any fucking time - you talk about this situation like there's any kind of parity whatsoever, you are being an ignorant "both sides" dickbag. There is no "both sides do it" here. The most egregious Philippines military base in the Spratfly Islands is in fact still closest to the Philippines. Meanwhile, the most egregious Chinese military base in the Spratfly Islands is closer to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia than it is China. And China's claims go even fucking further than that already egregious island. China's nine-dash line blatantly - fucking blatantly - runs through other country's exclusive economic zones. And the UNCLOS has ruled exactly that, with five judge panel agreeing unanimously with the Philippines that China was full of shit. And China told UNCLOS "fuck you it's mine it's all mine."

Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.

tussock wrote:Yes. That's what I said. Why do you think you disagree with me, again?

No, it is not what you said. It is that exact notion that you are deliberately trying to undermine with irrelevant bullshit talk about how "they're basically the same country, just can't quite settle on a leader, am I right?" bullshit. No one thinks you are contributing to the conversation with statements like that. We think you are trying to muddle the issue and distract from the important point, which is that China wants to reclaim Taiwan, by force if necessary, and Taiwan does not want that to happen. And we're right, because that's exactly what you're trying to do, and it makes you an asshole.

tussock wrote:Last guy was a cop, they got a call about gunfire and he was asking around. Guy before that, wanted to shoot some rabbits. Guy before that, rabbits. Guy before that, rabbits. The neighbours have guns, we have guns, people sometimes have their guns with them. You may be talking to the wrong person.

Cute, but I really don't fucking care. The Chinese navy is not equipped with hunting rifles. If you really want to be pedantic, I show up with, I dunno, let's say let's make it an assault rifle, a comical action hero bandolier of grenades, and fuck it a bazooka. And of course, I'm there to argue about property lines. I'm pretty sure some of your yard is mine.

There is a kind weaponry that would make you uncomfortable seeing someone outside your house with, and spoiler: the Chinese navy uses that kind of weaponry, and not whatever random shit your neighbors use to shoot rabbits. And if you have a neighbor who hunts rabbits with hand grenades, please don't tell me, it doesn't actually change the point and I don't fucking care. Actually, scratch that. Do tell me, because it may be the first time in two-thousand some posts you manage to write something worth reading.

tussock wrote:Like, our country also invites various countries warships into our ports. China turned up once, with their warships. At our ports. No one was terrified, they invited the media on for a guided tour, it was on the news. Seriously, major trading partner, been in less wars than New Zealand in my lifetime by pretty much infinity.

I... how the fuck did being a pedantic asshat about how your neighbors shoot crop-eating pest animals, so you actually do see guns veer into "man, Chinese warships are no big deal. They've been to New Zealand, you know. It wasn't that scary." No, I imagine it's not scary when Chinese naval vessels visit your ports for diplomatic reasons or whatever, instead of because they are claiming a bunch of the sea around your country and building a military base on an uninhabitated island in the region.

tussock wrote:They are also super keen on being treated as equals at all times, because communists.

That map is not an example of China wanting to be treated equally. This is some "more equal than others" bullshit you are saying right now. China wants people to roll over and give up their waters. And yes, I mean their waters - while the Spratfly Islands mostly have no legitimate owners, China's nine-dash line extends well past those islands and into other country's actual economic exclusion zones.

God I fucking hate you. You are literally just two terrible things shoved in a blender; non-sequiturs and centrism. Everytime the lid comes off and you open your mouth, you cover the walls in so much worthless shit and it's just awful. Can you stop?

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:42 pm

The hardest thing about reading this thread is the temptation to sig everything DSM writes about tussock.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:54 pm

I invented saying mean things about Tussock.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:27 pm

It's not just the unrivaled stupidity. It's the fucking arrogance and certitude, no matter how many times he is shown to be an idiot. That next hill on the horizon is always the next great idea to stake his claim and die on.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:26 pm

Kaelik wrote::sad: I invented saying mean things about Tussock.

You started a trend, soon it's going to be a global thing where all the cool kids do it.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:39 pm

Your regular voter suppression reminder. Trump won Michigan by 10k (before recount). 18k voters lacked strict photo ID. Disproportionately minorities.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:29 pm

Your regular reminder that the media did in fact hand the election to Trump on a silver platter, and that dumb as tendentious liars for trump like SlyJohnny and Hyzrmarca are in fact, full of shit:

http://shorensteincenter.org/news-cover ... =hootsuite

Lead up to election: fitness for office: From before Hollywood tape to election.

Outlet's covered:

Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and USA Today and just the primary newscasts: ABC’s “World News Tonight,” “CBS Evening News,” CNN’s “The Situation Room,” Fox News’s “Special Report” and “NBC Nightly News.”

AKA, the bastions of liberal news media super biased against Trump (and Fox and Wall Street Journal).

Clinton’s controversies got more attention than Trump’s (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused. Trump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clinton’s badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clinton’s alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverage—four times the amount of press attention paid to Trump’s treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clinton’s most heavily covered policy position.

...

There wasn’t much in Clinton’s general election news coverage that worked in her favor….Stories about her personal traits portrayed her as overly cautious and guarded and ran 3-to-1 negative. News reports on her policy positions trended negative by a ratio of 4-to-1. Everything from her position on health care to her position on trade was criticized, often in the form of an attack by Trump or another opponent. Her record of public service, which conceivably should have been a source of positive press, turned out differently. News reports on that topic were 62 percent negative to 38 percent positive, with Trump having a larger voice than she did in defining the meaning of her career. He was widely quoted as saying, “She’s been there 30 years and has nothing to show for it.”

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:57 pm

Kaelik wrote:Your regular voter suppression reminder. Drumpf won Michigan by 10k (before recount). 18k voters lacked strict photo ID. Disproportionately minorities.

Do we have a source on that 18k number?

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:05 pm

Kaelik wrote:Your regular reminder that the media did in fact hand the election to Trump on a silver platter, and that dumb as tendentious liars for trump like SlyJohnny and Hyzrmarca are in fact, full of shit:

http://shorensteincenter.org/news-cover ... =hootsuite

Lead up to election: fitness for office: From before Hollywood tape to election.

Outlet's covered:
Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and USA Today and just the primary newscasts: ABC’s “World News Tonight,” “CBS Evening News,” CNN’s “The Situation Room,” Fox News’s “Special Report” and “NBC Nightly News.”
AKA, the bastions of liberal news media super biased against Trump (and Fox and Wall Street Journal).

Clinton’s controversies got more attention than Trump’s (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused. Trump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clinton’s badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clinton’s alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverage—four times the amount of press attention paid to Trump’s treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clinton’s most heavily covered policy position.

...

There wasn’t much in Clinton’s general election news coverage that worked in her favor….Stories about her personal traits portrayed her as overly cautious and guarded and ran 3-to-1 negative. News reports on her policy positions trended negative by a ratio of 4-to-1. Everything from her position on health care to her position on trade was criticized, often in the form of an attack by Trump or another opponent. Her record of public service, which conceivably should have been a source of positive press, turned out differently. News reports on that topic were 62 percent negative to 38 percent positive, with Trump having a larger voice than she did in defining the meaning of her career. He was widely quoted as saying, “She’s been there 30 years and has nothing to show for it.”

Of course Hillary's policy positions didn't recieve much coverage. Her policy positions are uncontroversial and boring. Trump said things that got attention, so of course the media covered them. If Hillary was out there saying things like building a wall and making Canada pay for it, her policies would have gotten more press coverage.

The media is not in the business to provide accurate election coverage. The media is in the business to make money. They make money by putting eyeballs on screens. You don't do that be being high-minded and fair. You do that by appealing to the LCD.

Trump got better coverage because his policies were completely insane and people wanted to hear what he had to sat next, either because they agreed with him or they wanted to ridicule him. It doesn't matter, the end result is the same, eyes on screens.

On the other hand, Hillary's policies were sane and reasonably. Sane and reasonable does not attract viewership. Controversy attracts viewership, so that just leaves her scandals. Yes, Hillary would have gotten a lot better press coverage if she acted like Trump, beause the "no she didn't" factor would have sold the story, and people would have tuned in just to hear what she's say next.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:08 pm

virgil wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Your regular voter suppression reminder. Drumpf won Michigan by 10k (before recount). 18k voters lacked strict photo ID. Disproportionately minorities.
Do we have a source on that 18k number?

To be clear, 18k voters in the last election would not have the ID to vote in next one in the estimates of the Michigan Legislature that is trying to pass a Voter ID law right now. Not a specific statement about 10k/18k "deciding" Michigan in current election, just a general commentary that everywhere and always Repub legislators are doing the best they can to suppress voters, and it effected this election. Was not very clear on that point.

For the record, Michigan is particularly bad, since the Repub legislator that gets fewer votes but gets majority by gerrymandering passed several voter suppression laws that were overturned by voter referendum, and then they repassed the law with a minor spending appropriation next session, since spending bills cannot be removed by referendum.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:11 am

hyzmarca wrote:The media is not in the business to provide accurate election coverage. The media is in the business to make money. They make money by putting eyeballs on screens. You don't do that be being high-minded and fair. You do that by appealing to the LCD.

Does that not strike you as the least bit objectionable?

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:37 am

And all is fine between Trump and China again.

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:26 am

So, I've been wondering... What happened with the recount? Is it going to actually work?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:33 am

Shrapnel wrote:So, I've been wondering... What happened with the recount? Is it going to actually work?

If by work you mean, change the outcome, no, if you mean happen at all, mostly no.

Pretty sure Wisconsin recount is going on. Michigan recount is denied by courts because GOP contested it and argued no evidence of Fraud so no need to recount and won. Also Michigan GOP legislature pointing to numerous huge voter fraud as justification for Voter ID law they are passing right now. Yes that makes no sense, but welcome to the world of voter disenfranchisement.

Honestly don't know anything about PA recount off the top of my head.

drdaiba · Post by **drdaiba** » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:22 am

DSMatticus wrote: When China draws their magical claims line, it stretches south along the Vietnam coast[...]

Indeed:

The dashed line indicates China's claim. All of the Chinese map apps have updated their maps to indicate this. Amusingly, many Chinese people are under the impression that the U.S. has done the same thing with the Pacific using Hawaii, Guam, etc.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:49 am

http://www.pghcitypaper.com/PolitiCrap/ ... he-visited

That's from the local "alternative" newsweekly, but I think it's worth countering the narrative of how exactly Trump won. Here in PA it seems the actual story has more to do with lower democratic turnout in Philly than with populism or ballcaps or "working class voters".

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:31 pm

CIA themselves says Putin is a mastermind that can manipulate the USA elections.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:34 pm

maglag wrote:CIA themselves says Putin is a mastermind that can manipulate the USA elections.

I like how you inserted a random word in their to demonstrate that you are an idiot "hacked both parties and only released info from one" is pretty fucking easy.

Spent money to influence the election is pretty fucking easy. None of this is requires a mastermind.

When people illegally donated to Trump in excess of campaign finance laws, they obviously did so to influence the election, not just to buy their cabinet positions.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:00 pm

I continue to hope that there's some sort of operation putting together a criminal case behind the scenes and just making sure their case is watertight before they publicize it.

Seriously, we know:
• Russian intelligence was working to elect Trump.
• Trump was and is trying to discredit that idea.
• Russian officials were in ongoing contact with the Trump campaign, which the Trump campaign lied about.
• Trump has been bizarrely pro-Russia the whole time, including using political capital to alter his party's foreign policy platform to Russia's benefit (and lying about doing that).

That really looks like there was a quid pro quo agreement in place.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:09 pm

I mean, there definitely was, but so what? If we were going to not let him be president for breaking laws he wouldn't be president because he specifically admitted to campaign finance violations, and he's literally appointing other violators to his cabinet.

We live in Russia now, winning the election makes you immune to the laws, all of them, any of them.

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:13 pm

Kaelik wrote:
maglag wrote:CIA themselves says Putin is a mastermind that can manipulate the USA elections.
I like how you inserted a random word in their to demonstrate that you are an idiot "hacked both parties and only released info from one" is pretty fucking easy.

Spent money to influence the election is pretty fucking easy. None of this is requires a mastermind.

When people illegally donated to Trump in excess of campaign finance laws, they obviously did so to influence the election, not just to buy their cabinet positions.

If hacking the party's database and/or demonstrating illegal donations is so easy, then why didn't you use your superior genius to stop Trump's ascendancy to presidency?

Why didn't the CIA either?

Why did all the pre-election polls point to Clinto winning by an huge margin?

You don't need to fool everybody forever, only fool the right people for the right amount of time.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:21 pm

maglag wrote:
Kaelik wrote:
maglag wrote:CIA themselves says Putin is a mastermind that can manipulate the USA elections.
I like how you inserted a random word in their to demonstrate that you are an idiot "hacked both parties and only released info from one" is pretty fucking easy.

Spent money to influence the election is pretty fucking easy. None of this is requires a mastermind.

When people illegally donated to Trump in excess of campaign finance laws, they obviously did so to influence the election, not just to buy their cabinet positions.
If hacking the party's database and/or demonstrating illegal donations is so easy, then why didn't you use your superior genius to stop Trump's ascendancy to presidency?

Why didn't the CIA either?

Because unlike Russia and the FBI, the CIA followed the actual laws and specifically tried to avoid influencing the election?

Because unlike the CIA and Russia, I do not have billions of dollars at my disposal that allow me to arrange for hacking apparati and financial contributions to influence the election?

Again, being smart has pretty much no overlap with election influence. Being superiorily genius to Putin, true or not, would have no change, because Putin can literally pay an entire country of three's worth of people to do these things and I cannot.

As for demonstrating illegal donations, I don't need to BECAUSE TRUMP ADMITTED TO IT.

I know you only get your news from Brietbart because you are worried about fake news from the Washington Post, but back here in reality, Trump's Foundation literally checked a box on it's tax returns for the 2016 year that says "We, the Trump Foundation, totally commingled our funds, as a 503(c) organization, with a non 503(c) entity who spent the money on influencing the election."

I don't have to prove illegal donations, because Trump fucking checked a goddamn box saying that he accepted them.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:50 pm

The New York Times decided they were going to write an article about how Russia totally wasn't intervening in the election and there was no connection to Trump. They interviewed Reid for the piece, he told them that Russia definitely was, and that there was good evidence of Trump being involved. They threw out all his material and wrote the article they decided to write in advance without even mentioning the info they received.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/po ... trump.html

But keep telling me how the media was so biased in favor of Clinton.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:36 pm

http://www.pajiba.com/politics/donald-t ... crisis.php