You may be getting trolled right now without even knowing it.
Donald Trump supporters artificially manipulated the results of online polls to create a false narrative that the Republican nominee won the first presidential debate on Monday night.
The efforts originated from users of the pro-Trump Reddit community r/The_Donald and 4chan messaged boards, which bombarded around 70 polls, including those launched by Time, Fortune, and CNBC.
In this latest incarnation, multiple Reddit users enlisted the Trump-supporting masses on r/The_Donald, which has over 200,000 subscribers, by posting dozens of online polls that are vulnerable to vote brigading, bots, and other forms of manipulation that make these non-scientific surveys notoriously unreliable.
Polls that were not open to public voting consistently put Clinton ahead of Trump. In a flash poll by Public Policy Polling, Clinton led Trump 51 to 40. A CNN/ORC poll conducted immediately following the debate found significantly stronger support for Clinton, who topped Trump 62 to 27.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-clinton-debate-online-polls-4chan-the-donald/
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:13AM
>Polls that were not open to public voting consistently put Clinton ahead of Trump.
Wikileaks DNC email leaks proved that several networks are so in bed with the Democrats that they actually send them news stories for approval before publishing them.
For some reason that's fallen off the radar from a few months ago.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mechanicjay on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:26AM
Yeah, that nugget stuck out for me as well. I mean, I do think she won, but the narrative here really says all you need to know about the media and how perception is created and manipulated.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Francis on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:06AM
That's an area where Trump is much better. Not only don't the newspapers send things to him to review, he doesn't even send things to himself to review before posting. That's double-plus good.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:12AM
Polls that were not open to public voting consistently put Clinton ahead of Trump. In a flash poll by Public Policy Polling, Clinton led Trump 51 to 40. A CNN/ORC poll conducted immediately following the debate found significantly stronger support for Clinton, who topped Trump 62 to 27.
Yup, really nefarious stuff going on. Oh, wait. Not so much.
From the PPI Poll results [publicpolicypolling.com]:
From the ORC/CNN Poll Results [turner.com]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:47AM
You accidentally just showed an example of what he was talking about. Polls are generally carefully organized to ensure a representative sampling.
26% of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans, 41% identified themselves as Democrats, and 33% identified themselves as Independents.
2016 data [gallup.com] from Gallup puts the political distribution in the US as 29% democrat, 26% republican, 42% independent. CNN massively oversampled democrats while maintaining a proper sampling of republicans. I have 0 doubt their sampling of "independents" was just about as well done. I used to kind of roll my eyes when people would speak conspiratorially of the "mainstream media", but in reality it's sadly true and real issue. The "mainstream media" is becoming akin to the bad tabloids you used to see by the checkout at the grocery. Any notion of journalistic integrity or honesty is long gone. And it's made even worse in many ways because they try to pretend like they're speaking honestly and many people do believe this, whereas everybody knows tabloids are not to be taken at face value.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:59AM
So subtract 12% points from each of Clinton's scores and she still comes out ahead of Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:19PM
> 2016 data from Gallup puts the political distribution in the US as 29% democrat, 26% republican, 42% independent. CNN massively oversampled democrats while maintaining a proper sampling of republicans.
Eh. No single poll is definitive. This stuff is all fuzzy. Pew has different numbers: [people-press.org] 33% democrat, 29% republican and 34% independent. Maybe CNN was a little high on democrats, but it isn't hard to believe that people who were independents leaning towards a party last year have decided they are now part of a party based on what they've seen over the last year.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:56PM
You accidentally just showed an example of what he was talking about. Polls are generally carefully organized to ensure a representative sampling.
26% of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans, 41% identified themselves as Democrats, and 33% identified themselves as Independents.
2016 data from Gallup puts the political distribution in the US as 29% democrat, 26% republican, 42% independent. CNN massively oversampled democrats while maintaining a proper sampling of republicans. I have 0 doubt their sampling of "independents" was just about as well done. I used to kind of roll my eyes when people would speak conspiratorially of the "mainstream media", but in reality it's sadly true and real issue. The "mainstream media" is becoming akin to the bad tabloids you used to see by the checkout at the grocery. Any notion of journalistic integrity or honesty is long gone. And it's made even worse in many ways because they try to pretend like they're speaking honestly and many people do believe this, whereas everybody knows tabloids are not to be taken at face value.
Not really. what happened is that you accidentally showed your ignorance about survey methodologies and the use of weighted samples [wikipedia.org]:
A random sample was done and the data was weighted (as is done in most surveys) to ensure an accurate result.
Lest you think I'm just another paid shill, lying to support the MSM narrative (yes, we're everywhere! MWAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!), go ahead and query your preferred search engine for "sample weighting." I think you'll find it instructive.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:51AM
CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney
ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary
ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood
CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:01PM
In the middle of this nefarious ring of conspirators? KEVIN BACON!
Looks like he switched sides, now he supports the people with sticks up their butts.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:14AM
"It was -- I guess the numbers came out. Over 80 million people watched, so that's one of the biggest shows in the history of television."—Donald J. Trump http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1609/27/cnr.07.html [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday September 30 2016, @03:50AM
Yet still a small fraction of the number of people who watched the Eurovision Song Contest.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Sulla on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:25AM
Thank you for Correcting the Record.
Pretty sure both sides were doing this. Some of the polls had a couple million votes, enough that /pol/ and reddit wouldn't have made too huge of a dip even if all of them voted for Trump.
Boohoo we didn't hit the polls hard enough and 90% showed a Trump win, it must be the Trolls! Hackers! Russian trolls and hackers!
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:30AM
Who the fuck takes online polls seriously? Even many normal polls are unscientific, and online ones are even worse.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:27AM
> Who the fuck takes online polls seriously?
Trump and his campaign. They've been talking about those polls non-stop. Maybe it wasn't 4chan brigading them, but a bangladeshi click-farm hired by Trump. He has a history of hiring actors to make his events look big league. [hollywoodreporter.com] Fake it till you make it...
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:39AM
Can we ask this to our readers?
( ) I do
( ) I don't because I'm a conspiracy theorist
( ) I don't because usually I don't like the outcome
( ) I do and posted some reasons below
See? Totally unbiased and unmanipulative
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:00AM
If everyone votes for Trump, you should too!
After all, you wouldn't want to be a DEVIANT, would you?!?
Authoritarian followers are conformists.
And there are a lot of authoritarian followers.
So that's why online polls are important: many people want to vote just like "everybody else", where the "everybody else" is subject to interpretation and manipulation.
(Score: 2) by arulatas on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:55PM
If you don't vote Trump you must be a Muslim sympathizer...
Trump and his new brand of McCarthyism.
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 3, Informative) by mojo chan on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:35AM
That's the Trump narrative: Everyone is just as bad, so by comparison I'm no worse!
What amazes me is that the morons over at 4chan still haven't figured out that if you discuss your plans to screw with polls in public other people will notice. It's GamerGate all over again, they discussed their harassment and false flag ops and sock puppet accounts in a public IRC forum where one of their victims was able to simply log and publish it all.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:25AM
Or could it be that the "other side" are doing it to smear "4chan", and be able to play the victims?
Case in point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @10:22AM
Or maybe someone is trying to make it look like someone is trying to make 4chan look bad. Maybe it's a false false flag.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:38AM
If voting in a public poll is 'artificially manipulating the results' then all such polls are artificially manipulated.
I'm sure there's false narrative enough to go around here, but you're spinning as much as anyone. Without any official judges and scorecards we the voters are the judges in these debates, and I doubt very much anyone that wasn't already a rabid Clinton booster beforehand really thinks she 'won.'
"Polls that were not open to public voting consistently put Clinton ahead of Trump."
Yes, Clinton is extremely popular with groups other than the voters, we know.
So inconvenient for her that we're supposed to get to vote instead of just accepting her pre-ordained coronation.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:47AM
If voting in a public poll is 'artificially manipulating the results' then all such polls are artificially manipulated.
You missed it completely. Voting is encouraged. One person voting hundreds or thousands of times using fake accounts and/or botnets is abuse. Of course, this wasn't invented by the 4chan and reddit crowd, I'm sure this online ballot stuffing goes back to the '90s or even earlier.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:02AM
Oh, Tempores! Oh, Mores! How quickly kids these days forget! The proper term is "freeping", as in "freeping an online poll", or "to freep a poll". The term comes from the alt-right site Free Republic, whose denizens would hit an on-line poll all at once seeking to make it reflect their own twisted minority view. This is part of the reason we even now here have an inheritance from Slash: "if you are using these numbers for anything important, you are insane."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:25AM
Oh, Tempores! Oh, Mores!
I don't like being "that guy", but the quotation is "O tempora! O mores!"
Tempus is 3rd declension, but neuter, so the plural ends in -a, not -es. But I forgive you, given young master Tully wasn't born until over a century after you died.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:36AM
Yes, you are correct, of course. Thank you. In my defense, besides the being dead thing, Latin is not my native language. τα παιδιά αυτές τις μέρες!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:11PM
τα παιδιά αυτές τις μέρες!
I see you've adopted the vocabulary (and declensions) of the young hip crowd, even amidst your exasperation with them. Personally, I prefer the sonorous qualities of the ancient tongue. :)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:11PM
I am severely impressed! No only do you know your Tully, but also can distinguish between Ionic Greek and Modern? Laudato si'
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:36PM
Freep isn't alt-right.
I mean, they're incredibly bigoted, they're stupid, they utterly destroy any dissent inside their site, but but but... they're not millennials.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:55PM
Alt-right are fascists of all ages, not just "millennials".
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:05PM
I guess.
I feel like the term was invented to invoke the people who believe in all the stupid shit religious fundamentalists do, but are atheists.
Or the ones who buy into all the hardcore social controls of traditionalism but smoke pot.
Or they want to remove all the "other" races, but don't want to be removed themselves for being the wrong kind of white.
I get what you're saying, inasmuch as being a giant piece of shit seems to be the most important and central element of the alt-right.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:15AM
I can't help but feel like the fascist movements of the 20th century grew out of using Nietzsche's ideas as a way of justifying contemptible theories of superiority and the justification of force. This century, Ayn Rand's John Galt mythos seems to be the new epicenter.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:58PM
Yeah Free Republic is a totalitarian echo chamber. Nice advertisement for free speech and freedom, that.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:40PM
I'd have modded you informative if you weren't already sitting at 5, because I've been on the internet since 1997 and have never heard of "freeping". Of course, that's probably because I find the alt-right offensive as dogshit and stay as far away as possible.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:49AM
In May 1998, People Magazine conducted an online poll on their website asking the public to vote to determine the “Most Beautiful People” in the world [...] Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf [...] won by a landslide [...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank%20the%20Angry%20Drunken%20Dwarf#Most_Beautiful_Person_poll [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:37PM
Trump will win in November with 150% of the registered voters.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:57AM
I'm not a Clinton booster, rabid or otherwise, but it looks to me like Hillary easily beat Trump in this debate. Easily. In fact, I must give her at least grudging admiration for how well she handled herself. She was clearly prepared for this debate while Trump was rocked back on his heels at least a couple of times by her well-timed rejoinders. (e.g., Trump's obviously stunned response, regarding Alicia Machado: "Where did you find her?") I'm still not voting for Clinton though.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:53AM
Depends how you evaluate it. On traditional debating points, Clinton probably comes out on top. But they had very different goals going in.
Trump is running as the change candidate in a change election where the people are very grumpy about the general way things are going. He should be winning, it should not be close. All of the advisors (and I tend to agree) are telling him the low info normies who should be in his camp are buying the DNC/media narrative that he is a dangerous nut who would get mad and nuke somebody and destroy the world. All Republican candidates are painted as evil morons but they have amped it to 11 on Trump. So he had to reassure them he was "Presidential" in the one opportunity where a record audience would be watching. Most pundits concede he achieved that goal, he was up on a stage with Clinton and didn't say or do anything the DNC can spin as 'disqualifying.' You should note that he left obvious attack lines untouched. Even with Lester Holt totally in the tank, Trump could have spontaneously launched some pretty obvious ones from his stump speech arsenal; heck he could have launched some obvious bombs on Holt. He didn't, he did launch one attack on the emails and nothing else. I suspect he knows that if he went on the attack he wouldn't have been able to hold back; he would have got wound up, went 'full Trump' on her crooked ass and scared the normies.
Clinton had to show that she could remain vertical for an hour and a half, avoid spazzing out, not shriek too much, get in as many talking points as possible and make sure her campaign/media had a plausible claim for declaring victory, no matter how slight. She mostly succeeded. Since she (or her people) almost certainly wrote the questions she had plenty of time to be ready for them. Note that other than generic questions directed to both candidates, which memorized fragments of stump speeches can handle, she only had to handle TWO questions, zero followups and zero embarrassing questions. She didn't even need to worry about hiding an earpiece for that debate. Her only need to think on the fly was when Trump discarded the format and directly went after her. But seriously, can YOU point out a memorable statement from Clinton?
However, the truth of the matter was that Clinton was utterly powerless at that debate. Absolutely nothing SHE could do was going to change the course of events in her favor other than goading Trump into making a fatal mistake, which she failed to do. She could of course have made a fatal mistake of her own, or had a medical malfunction, both of which she avoided. This whole event was Trump's to win simply by not screwing up since even a tie or minor loss lets him pass the "Presidential" test. "Winning" the debate as such isn't important since we aren't electing a debate champion and almost every persuadable Trump voter already understands the game is rigged in the first place.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:21AM
Yeah, Clinton didn't land any hits ..... until you ignore the fact that she showed him up as a lying racist.
(Score: 0) by XivLacuna on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:00AM
Yeah, Trump is totally the racist. I mean, it isn't like Clinton referred to young black men as super predators in the past.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:18AM
Good enough retort, lemme really drop a steamer in the thread though. :)
Let us look at the 'compassion' of the Democrats over the last fifty years. Keeping most blacks penned up in inner city hellholes living lives of squalor, horror and dependency... needed only one day every two years. If David Duke were given limitless power it is doubtful either him or Exalted Cyclops Byrd (rest in Hell) would have done anything much worse to blacks. Other than outright genocide there really aren't many things worse than destroying a people's hope, their families and encouraging them to abort themselves by the tens of million from utter despair. Not that there is much difference anyway, the Klan was the terror wing of the Democratic Party after all. The Clintons themselves were all too happy to produce campaign materials on Confederate Flag backgrounds. You can still buy some of it on eBay, it doesn't run afoul of their listing regs yet; banning official Democratic Party campaign merch would give the game away after all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:49AM
Yes, a "steamer" is a very good description of your post. How does a turd like that get modded up? It's embarrassing.
1 - Everyone knows the Dems and Reps switched shirts back in the 60s, calling the Democrats the party of racism because of what happened 50 years ago is like saying that modern day Germany is full of Nazis. Things change.
2 - As for the Democrats keeping "blacks penned up in inner city hellholes", how about a citation? Some actual evidence please, and not an unsubstantiated rant about the evils of welfare / socialism.
3 - Trump is a racist. The evidence is piled up to the ceiling, and it takes an unfathomable amount of delusion or dishonesty (or perhaps a complete inability to understand the word "racist") to attempt to claim otherwise.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:23AM
I'm no Trump supporter, but the word 'racist' is one of the most overused and misunderstood words of recent generations. Calling someone a racist because they say something that identifies with someone else's race is just plain retarded. The whole PC thing is way out of hand.
If race is such an important issue to you and you feel that those of other races are too weak to stand up to scrutiny, perhaps it is actually you who is racist. That is unless you treat criticism of your own race in the same way. I'd say the chance of that is zero.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:34AM
"Wahwahwahwahwah PC gone mad." The world is not out to get you, you are not an oppressed victim bravely battling jackbooted PC thugs who want to redistribute your property to gay black disabled transgender dwarfs. Furhermore, Trump is not the Robin Hood champion of fairness and justice who will stand up for average guys like you. He is an egotistical spoiled prick who lives entirely in a universe of his own imagining where he is never wrong about anything, and you are an over-sensitive, relatively well-off white guy who has been conned into adopting an unwarranted persecution complex by those who benefit from divisiveness.
"Saying something that identifies with someone else's race" is one thing. People do it all the time, and nobody calls them racist. But that's not Trump. Trump has made it perfectly clear, through decades of ill-considered words and actions, that he thinks he can tell the worth of a person's character simply by looking at their skin colour. In his mind, Mexicans==rapists and criminals. Blacks and Latinos are the kind of people he would not let out his property to. Immigrants are "poisoned skittles" and Muslims are oppressors. Jews are good with money, but black people can't be trusted as accountants. They certainly can't be trusted to run a country, which is why he spent years haranguing the president over his birth certificate (and then last week when he had to backtrack but couldn't admit being wrong, denied that he was ever a birther in the first place.). A bunch of black teenagers who were wrongly arrested for a rape they didn't commit, bullied into confessing and convicted, then later released when DNA evidence and a confession conclusively proves another guy did it should still be executed anyway, because Trump's gut feelings that they were always guilty override the evidence, the courts, reality itself. Trust me, I am not misusing the word racist when I say DONALD TRUMP IS A RACIST.
As for your feeble "those of other races are too weak to stand up to scrutiny" strawman - of course everybody should stand up to scrutiny, but they should be scrutinised according to their own personal words and actions, not according to their skin colour.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:19PM
Sigh. Good Lord, what a day this is. Second time in a thread I'm stepping in to argue on jmorris's behalf (though this time more parallax than parallel).
I believe you are correct in asserting that Trump is no Robin Hood or champion of justice and fairness. He isn't. His most ardent supporters are in for some mighty disappointment on that score. You begin to overstep the mark, though, when you dismiss their grievances as a mere "unwarranted persecution complex." The real incomes of Americans have been on an uninterrupted 40-year slide. NAFTA, championed by Hillary and her husband, gutted American manufacturing. The American middle class (a great deal of them in organized labor, BTW), suffered massive job losses and in incomes. The only ones who won from that deal were the 1%. None of that is imagined, and most of it has been thoroughly documented and argued by progressives, not just by Trump. It's also something that has affected Americans of all races, not just white men. Honestly, it's weird to hear anyone whose surname isn't Rockefeller argue otherwise. That's the vein Trump has tapped into, and it's real and fully, fully warranted.
Second, you're calling Donald Trump a racist because you're drinking koolaid of a different flavor. It's the same koolaid that wants people to believe that people who oppose Hillary are doing so because they're misogynist. Trump has cynically played the race card with respect to Muslim immigrants in the exact same way Hillary played it when she voted to invade Iraq. "FEAR THE OTHER!" It works every time. But I still don't believe that either Trump or Hillary are really racist. The world they live in, the air they breathe, doesn't give a tinker's damn about race, religion, or nationality. They only care about ego. Ego is the only thing that matters. And while I can't personally attest to how true to Trump's public persona his actual character is, I can personally attest that is 100% true of the Clintons. They are purely mercenary, pure grifters, 100% corrupt, and evil to the core. They would order the deaths of a 1,000 babies if it meant they'd wind up $1 million richer, and there was little chance they'd get caught.
If you want to vote for someone in the race who's worth voting for, vote for Jill Stein. She's the best person running. But don't carry water for Hillary. The world will be an exponentially better place the day the Clinton name is struck from the history books.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:25PM
The "unwarranted persecution complex" is nothing to do with manufacturing jobs or NAFTA. It's the anti-PC-anti-"SJW" kneejerk knobheads who have been convinced that to be a middle-class white guy in America is to be the downtrodden victim of a conspiracy to give his job to an underqualified minority via positive discrimination and then tax all his money into the pockets of illegal immigrants. This narrative fits very well with the 1% who would like very much to see all kinds of welfare (except corporate welfare, obviously) abolished.
I agree with you in that the 1% in general are equal-opportunity oppressors, and are just as happy to rob and crush a white guy as a black one. I would even go so far as say that most of the partisan arguments and much of the racial tension around this election are simply the result of "divide and conquer" tactics from on high to keep the peons squabbling amongst themselves.
To say that Trump is not a racist, that he might just be projecting some kind of bigoted persona... well I have to disagree. Many of his most telling statements and actions date back to well before this campaign. The guy clearly has some nasty preconceived ideas about people of certain colours and he acts on them. Even if that were the case though, I would argue that if someone in a position of power and influence puts on an unpleasant public persona and encourages others to take on those traits for themselves... then they are even more irresponsible than someone who actually believes all that foul shit. [1] If Trump's unapologetic bigotry in his campaigning isn't genuine, then he's even more of an dick for using such an evil tool so cynically.
Trump also supported the Iraq war by the way [theguardian.com] (admittedly in a half-arsed sort of a way, but he wasn't a politician at the time so I guess that's not such a big deal). Hilary voted for the war (on the understanding that non-military options would be exhausted first) and later admitted that it had been the wrong vote. Trump simply denied that he never supported it and we have always been at war with Eurasia. I know which of those attitudes I respect more.
Regarding Hilary: I have no strong opinion. She has probably broken some rules and made a lot of compromises to get where she is, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone at that level of politics who hasn't.[2] Whatever, she has certain basic qualifications necessary for office that Trump lacks: She is sharp-minded, experienced and professional and apparently capable of planning, articulating, negotiating and compromising to make things happen in the dual sharkpools of international and domestic politics. Even if she is the monster you claim[3], at least, if elected, she would be YOUR monster, working to further American interests as far as they align with her own. In contrast Trump is a shallow thinking, loud-mouthed buffoon with no subtlety, statesmanship, or deep understanding of anything[4]. However he is possessed of an unshakeable conviction in his own infallibility and supremacy that lays him wide open to manipulation and deception. If he got into power he (and by extension America) would be eaten alive by the likes of Putin who would flatter and manipulate him into giving the USA away because he can't even perceive that what he's doing doesn't serve his own interests.
Finally I won't be voting for Trump, Clinton or your Jill Stein because mercifully, I don't live within a thousand miles of your fucked up country.
[1] Case in point: Boris Johnson. As far as anyone can tell he almost certainly doesn't believe in Brexit, but he campaigned for it and won it anyway just to further his career. A hypocrite and a traitor.
[2] You can't tell me Trump hasn't broken rules, he's as crooked as they come. but I might be persuaded to concede that he hasn't ever compromised on what passes for his "principles".
[3] Your post seems somewhat hyperbolic. I don't doubt she's cynical, but not THAT cynical.
[4] On the other hand, he does have an extraordinary talent for making expensive suits look cheap.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:53PM
Again, you're choosing to swallow her spin. I know what you're saying is not true because I was deeply engaged in politics at that time, too, and we New York progressives were directly connected with her office (she was our Senator at the time, remember), telling her in no uncertain terms that the pretext for invading Iraq was a complete fabrication. We demonstrated in the millions on the east side of Manhattan, filling every avenue for as far as the eye could see, and she still cast that vote cynically. She knew exactly what she was doing, and was taken in by no one.
That would describe any other master criminal. It doesn't mean I want Lex Luthor sitting in the Oval Office.
No, she wouldn't. Hillary doesn't give a damn about the American people. The only thing she cares about is figuring out new ways to sell the American people down the river and pocket the sum. She and her husband already sold advanced targeting technology to the Chinese. Who do you think they're going to target with that technology, East Timor?
Not, hyperbolic, but clear. I have seen the inside of their operations. I ran their operations. I have seen Chris Ruddy (CEO of Newsmax, and the guy who ran the Vince Foster conspiracy) sitting in meetings with the Clintons, divvying up the spoils. I have seen Rupert Murdoch do the same. I have been in the room when household names you would instantly know have schemed out ways to fleece the public. It's "just business" to them.
I agree the ranting about "SJWs" is tiresome. The white supremacists coming out of the woodwork are exceptionally distasteful. Unfortunately there has been a real conspiracy to grind Americans under the boot heel. It's not because the elites hate white people or Americans generally, but because they want to pocket even more billions. They have bought laws that make it legal to offshore operations and launder profits through shell corporations in the Caymans, so they use them.
In fact, the elites don't care about race at all. They are as comfortable rubbing elbows with ultra-wealthy Chinese and Africans in the private clubs and resorts of the world as any other sort of people. Why wouldn't they be? They all went to Harvard and Oxford, too. They were school chums. When introduced, they don't ask where they're from, but who their people are (that is, are they Rockefellers, or Fords, etc). The only time they would mention place of national origin or any language of the kind would be when talking to the rabble, a thing they try very hard to avoid.
It can be quite hard for people who have never encountered the elite to accept that they live in a completely different world than we do. But they do. And you are quite right that the anti-SJW vs. SJW stuff is all their creation, and very much their tactic to divide and distract us to keep us from ever getting wise to that fact.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:20AM
No, I call him a racist because, unlike you, I am not blind to history. [heavy.com]
Don't forget, if you vote for Trump, you are voting to weaken the first amendment. He has made that very clear. You are voting for someone who misuses charitable donations. If you actively support him, then I ascribe those same value to you.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:43AM
Jesus. Are you 3? And should we blame you personally for Obama assassinating American citizens with drones and the NSA's completely blowing away the Constitution because you voted for him? (that's assuming, of course, that you were even old enough to vote at the time).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:30AM
No, we call him a racist because he had to settle an investigation into racist housing policies. You know, actual proof that he is a racist.
That's on top of his recent utterances about Muslims and Mexicans.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:58PM
Perish the thought that I might agree with jmorris on something, but these are strange times. Democrats do keep the inner city votes locked up through direct control of the existence of blacks (and Latinos, and any other economically disadvantaged group) who depend on any form of public assistance to survive. I can't personally attest to that in other cities like Baltimore or Philadelphia, but I have witnessed it at work here in New York City.
A decade ago I was deeply involved in the Howard Dean campaign, and founded a large grassroots organization (15,000 people) to work for his presidential run. After he dropped out of the race we continued to work on state and local races in New York. One of the races we worked on was a primary challenge to Marty Dilan, a state senator representing a district in North Brooklyn, a neighborhood called Williamsburg. Marty Dilan was the protege of the Brooklyn Democratic Party Boss, Vito Lopez. Vito Lopez, as party boss, personally hired all the poll site captains and poll workers. Marty Dilan controlled the State Dept. of Housing, so anyone who lived in, or whose friends and relatives lived in, public housing would be at direct risk for being thrown out on the street if they voted against Marty Dilan.
The task of our organization on primary day was to serve as poll monitors and hand out flyers close to poll sites (outside the exclusion zone). I worked several poll sites inside, monitoring the proceedings to make sure there were no shenanigans; I spent half the day at a high-rise public housing project, and the other half at a low-rise public housing location. At the first the poll captain was a grandmotherly woman who was in the tank for Dilan, because she had been appointed the poll captain at that site by Vito Lopez for years. She thought it was OK to go into the voting booth with the voters and flip the switches for them, something that is totally illegal. I objected strenuously and instructed the cop on duty to eject her from the poll site. The cop refused. I filed an emergency complaint with the Board of Elections; nothing happened. At the low rise site, the poll captain was Vito Lopez's girlfriend. That area had more support for the challenger, but nobody showed up to vote for him. Funny, that.
Later that day other members of our organization witnessed Marty Dilan himself getting out of his limo and punching out some of the challenger's supporters who were holding up signs next to one of the busy roads in the district. There were three cops present, but they did nothing. Our organization's members demanded, incredulously, that the cops do something to intervene. No, they said, their mothers (or cousins, or sisters) lived in public housing in the district. Dilan would have thrown them out on the street.
That's a bit lengthier a reply than you were probably expecting, but you did demand a citation. There it is. Democrats have a stranglehold on inner city blacks and others in a hundred different ways. Housing, food stamps, medical care, electricity, plumbing, the neighborhood schools, immigration, etc, etc. If they don't do as they're told and vote how they're told, the Democratic party machine can make their lives very difficult if not impossible. It is nothing like a democracy at all and much closer to a feudal system. And if you think it's fanciful that there could be such a lock extending from the national level down to the very building you live in, consider that Hillary Clinton's strongest local booster was my city councilman who never did one damn useful thing in 12 years in office. That know-nothing, meh x 10^50 city councilman is somebody you might know today, Bill de Blasio. He's the mayor of NYC now.
I'm afraid, my friend, that as much as it pains me to say it, jmorris is right on this point.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:36PM
A fascinating anecdote, and I don't doubt its veracity, but I would say it is proof of one crooked politician (and his crooked minions) rather than proof of a national democratic racist conspiracy.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:23PM
One crooked politician? Oh, no, that was one crooked politician to illustrate the system that obtains in New York City, the sina qua non of national Democratic party politics. Whether it's the Boyland family in East Brooklyn, the Clarke family in Crown Heights/Bedford-Stuyvesant, or Charlie Rangel's people in the Bronx, it's crooked through-and-through.
Also, I didn't say that it was a racist conspiracy. My thesis was not that the Democratic party is the racist party and that the Republican party is not, but that the Democratic party very much has a vested material interest in preserving the dependency of urban blacks, Latinos, and other disadvantaged groups and that they very directly and ruthlessly defend it. The race of the dependent groups is immaterial. The group could be creamy white, blonde-haired Lithuanians and the situation would be the same.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:32PM
I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years. --LBJ
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:45PM
> Dilan would have thrown them out on the street.
> If they don't do as they're told and vote how they're told, the Democratic party machine can make their
> lives very difficult if not impossible. It is nothing like a democracy at all and much closer to a feudal system.
You don't think it is a huge leap to go from one corrupt politician threatening to abuse his power to systemic oppression? In this age of cellphone video of everything you don't the kind of widespread threats you are talking about wouldn't be all over the net? Even without video, talk about that shit would be all over black twitter. And yet its not. Ah, more proof of conspiracy! Lack of proof is actually proof!
Not all minorities are poor. Sure, a disproportionate amount are, but there are still tons who are living decent middle-class lives without welfare. And they still overwhelmingly vote democrat. The demoractic party takes minorities for granted. But it isn't because of some feudal system where all the politicians "own" them because of dependency. Its because the republicans have made racism an unofficial party plank for the last 40 years while the democrats are the ones doing the opposite. And that's plain as day to anyone who isn't white.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:15PM
Spoken like a millenial. This happened before smartphones with cameras were ubiquitous. Even now, it's illegal to take photos or video inside the poll site. Also, this happened long before there was Twitter, and before there was Facebook. Young people today don't realize how recent those companies are, because they never paid any attention to the world before they became teenagers and got their first cell phones. To help you with the cultural timeline, at the time it was happening the closest thing to the social media we know today was Meetup.com, and that was about using their platform to meet in person with other like-minded people. Gasp! Yes, that's meet in-person.
I could tell you similar stories about the Boyland family in East Brooklyn, or the Clarkes in Crown Heights/Bedford-Stuyvesant. Those are things I've witnessed personally. But I don't want to bore everyone with a wall of text about the inner workings of New York City Democratic party corruption. And it wouldn't convince the millenials among you anyway, since it's still anecdotal, isn't it? Or I could suggest you do a quick Google and look up the convictions of former Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon "Shelly" Silver (Democrat, convicted in May 2016) and former New York State Senate Majority leader Dean Skelos (Republican, also convicted in May 2016), explain that in New York State politics everything, everything is decided by the "Three Men in the Room," aka the Governor, Senate Majority Leader, and Speaker of the Assembly, and assert that that is hard data that damns the system pretty irrefutably, and you'll still wave your hand and say, "It can't be so," because you've already made up your mind that Hillary can do no wrong, and that the Democratic Party leadership is still mostly good people.
They aren't. And they need to go, along with their Republican counterparts.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:24PM
> Spoken like a millenial. This happened before smartphones with cameras were ubiquitous.
You asserted that the conspiracy is on going. If your best defense is that this conspiracy is no longer happening then what exactly is your beef?
Even more revealing is that you have no response for the fact that minorities who are not on welfare also vote overwhelmingly for the democratic party.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:39AM
Yet you speak up for Trump! Hypocrite!
The simple fact is that you have almost no idea what Trump will do in office. He has backtracked so many times it is hard to follow. If you think you do know, then you are simply in denial.
But what do we know about Trump: 1. He is a racist. 2. He has misused charitable donations. 3. He wants to weaken the 1st amendment, so that rich people can't be criticized.
He doesn't care about you or people like you. All he cares about is promoting the interests of the wealthy.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:41AM
I know that, but there's a chance he will stop the TPP. There's a chance he'll take out a couple noxious Wall Street bankers (likely because they jumped the queue at the squash court). But at least that's something. With Hillary, there's zero chance.
Also, I want to stick my finger in the eye of the Establishment. I want to see them quail in fear for once. Yes, it's nihilism, but there we are. They made the bed, and now they're gonna lie in it with us.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Whoever on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:35PM
Oh my god..
You really are stupid, aren't you!
Trump is establishment. He always has been. His campaign has been funded by other wealthy people, almost from the beginning.
He isn't going to do anything against the establishment. Instead, he wants to neuter the first amendment so that wealthy people can't be criticized.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:44PM
Excellent. We seem to have found a genuine Hillary supporter.
Trump won't bring down the Establishment as a whole, but he might bring down some of them, and that's what's got them worried. Suddenly they're all searching their memories to see if they ever slighted Trump at a cocktail party. I admit that's very little to root for, but it's something, and a whole lot more than the zero we'd get from Hillary.
I honestly would vastly have preferred Bernie Sanders. I think he's a good guy and would have gentled the circumstances of the 99%, who haven't caught a break in 40 years. But the game was rigged against him, too, and now there's nothing left but to savor the nervous quivering of the 1%.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:07PM
You've been reading Scott Adams' blog. :)
(Score: 4, Informative) by mcgrew on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:53PM
"Crooked Hillary" isn't the candidate who's being sued for FRAUD. Neither is she the racist who was found guilty of racial discrimination twice.
Only racists discriminate on the basis of race. Trump is a bona-fide racist.
And she didn't call black youth superpredators, she called GANG MEMBERS superpredators, and she was right; I've known some personally. Here's the quote: "But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs, just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel."
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:21PM
Thank you for asking and, yes, I can. A couple of examples:
I have no doubt that this one will go down in history as being on par with Sen Bentsen's response to Dan Quayle "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
Or, how about we revisit this one:
As I already alluded to, that rocked Donald back on his heels squealing in pain, "Where did you find this? Where did you find this?"
Seriously, if you would just take off your hyper-partisan goggles you will see that Clinton clearly bested that dimwit Donald. And I don't have to be a Clinton supporter to to see this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:55AM
There were a few but my fav was her reply to Trump questioning her stamina.
Many news outlets shortened her response to just "After you travel to 127 countries" but I thought the part about lasting through 11 hours of congressional testimony pretty good too.
"Then you can ask me about stamina"... ha.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:21AM
...but it looks to me like Hillary easily beat Trump in this debate. Easily. In fact, I must give her at least grudging admiration for how well she handled herself. She was clearly prepared for this debate while Trump was rocked back on his heels at least a couple of times by her well-timed rejoinders.
Yes indeed. What amazed me was that Trump repeatedly took the bait when Clinton went after his money and business dealings. That took him deep into the weeds several times. Hillary was cool and composed each time Trump attacked her, even chuckling and wearing a shit eating grin whenever he kept repeating documented falsehoods.
I actually felt kind of bad for him a few times, as he was obviously out of his depth.
The way Clinton so easily baited him and led him around by the nose, you have to wonder about his intellectual capacity.
He really came off as a lightweight to me.
I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but it seems to me that if he's so easily flustered by a few barbs about his tax returns and the documented statements he's made and then furiously denies, you have to wonder how he might react in a crisis.
As to those who keep saying that the MSM is in the tank for HIllary, that may be so, I don't know.
All the same, in my experience, when someone says that everyone else is scapegoating them, it usually means that it's them and not everyone else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:59PM
What's there to wonder about? He'll declare martial law and launch the nukes, like the fucking thin-skinned, weak-willed, little bitch he is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:00AM
My takeaway was 'even' with trump 'slightly' up. The really up polls kinda shocked me. As the mood right after was 'even' slightly in favor of trump. Then I heard they were all online polls. Which means they all can pretty much be taken and thrown away. They are dead easy to manipulate. I never saw it more clearly than when a co-worker put up an online poll. There were maybe 40 people in the whole office. We had well over 200k votes. The guy who manipulated it almost got fired over it. But the idea was clear and to the point, online is easy to manipulate. However, CNN oversampled by 20% for democrat. Even in the best of the best projections that is nowhere near reality. So even the ones where there was little input from the public were manipulated.
The only poll that counts at this point is the one we all will make in a month or so.
The news has a vested interest in making things 'seem' close. Even if they are not. This is their Christmas. All the money is flowing in right now. They are so far wrapped up in it they basically skipped the big thing in NY a week or so ago to talk about ... Trump.
Also 'pepe' and 'alt-right' are the narrative the Clinton group is pushing. Last week it was 'liar'. Forgot what the week before that was. They change strategies so fast it is hard to keep up. Guess this week it is 'pepe' again with even the ADL coming out that pepe is a hate thing.
Most people at this point have 'picked'. The 5-10% or so that have not at this point either will not vote or were waiting for the debates to be finished. That means the debates have little influence on anything other than to give the media more points for their dudes to pontificate over. Expect non-stop hours of poring over every eyebrow wipe and its deeper meaning within the matrix.
For me the big one was 'NAFTA and TPP is the gold standard'. That will be hard for her to work around esp in the blue color world. They have watched everything they grew up with and built evaporate. I have watched over the past 15 or so the white collar world starting to go the same route. It is clear this group wants to give even more power and money to multi national corps to do whatever they want and play arbitrage games with laws.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:25PM
I believe this is the core of why Trump will win. Hillary is in the pockets of the multi-nationals, and everyone knows it. Everyone in the United States who is not a hedge fund manager knows it and feels the ground eroding beneath their feet. They're afraid, and can perceive the danger of TPP the way a herd scents the smoke from a distance wild fire on the breeze.
In truth the hedge fund managers, media moguls, and all of the Clinton cronies and puppetmasters should be rooting for Trump to win, because it would throw the 99% a bone and stave off the guillotine, and because Trump really won't change the status quo that much. If they rig this election for their own darling Hillary, then she won't get more than two years into her term before it all falls apart and they are dragged kicking and screaming from their armored SUVs by angry mobs.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:59PM
Why must there be a "winner" in a debate? Whatever happened to debates being to inform voters on candidate platforms?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:30AM
> If voting in a public poll is 'artificially manipulating the results' then all such polls are artificially manipulated.
Puhlease, are you so stupid that you can't understand that they are saying they voted multiple times? Its not hard, just clear the cookies and do it again.
This is soylent for fucksake! We all should know how it works.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:57AM
Biased hacks with press credentials are pointing and shrieking at Internet trolls out gaming them at rigging the news to steer the all important "Narrative."
Everybody with a perch on a shouting head show carefully explained how Trump winning every online poll after the pre-primary debates didn't mean anything and he was sure to lose once actual voters weighed in. Especially those horrid Drudge polls, only a moron believed those!
No, Trump never achieved Drudge level majorities at the ballot box but all that enthusiasm did translate into healthy wins and the nomination. We will know more about this one in a week, until then it is all just spin to push the speaker's narrative. All sides do it, guess it can't really be helped. The key is to keep destroying the DNC/Media lie that they are two different entities and constantly hammer the reality that they ARE just spinning for their team.
The greatest lie the Devil ever told was that he didn't exist. The greatest lie the media tells us is that they do.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:47AM
Until several hours after the vote, Mitt Romney really thought he had won the 2012 election. Refused to concede. He was surrounded by people who were convinced that the polls with the best reputations for accuracy were unsound and biased in favor of the Democrats. They were using their own picked polls that they had convinced themselves were superior. But they and their "corrected" polls were wrong, and the best polls were right.
They really drank the Kool-Aid on that one. If that was an isolated incident, it wouldn't be so bad. But no, that's just one small piece of a gigantic whole. If the Republicans are ever going to regain their reputation for being the party who takes reality more seriously than Democrats, they have to stop pulling stunts like that. Get their heads out of the dark mud of conspiracy theories and woolly thinking in which no one has any idea what's correct, and admit the smashingly obvious fact that science works. No, there is not a giant liberal conspiracy to scare the public into funding climate scientists with a massive propaganda campaign that Global Warming is real and a problem. Global Warming really is real, and caused by our CO2 emissions, and will cause massive problems if we don't make any changes. Republicans have got to stop denying reality. Remember how the Democrats were routinely mocked for being bleeding heart liberals? How the Democrats were the impractical ones who didn't get the darker parts of human nature? The Democrats tried a War on Poverty and it was an abysmal failure, and why? Because simply throwing money at the poor doesn't work too well. But so long as the Republicans keep making blithering idiots of themselves, those facts will be drowned out by the blizzard of misinformation and propaganda that passes for conservative thinking these days. And that's a real shame. Democrats need balance, and the Republicans aren't up to the job, have declined and degenerated to the point they can't even maintain an appearance of seriousness. Who but idiots could possibly take Trump seriously? He's at best a protest candidate, attractive to Republicans who are so fed up with the status quo in the party that they would rather nominate a nut than put up with any more of the same old crap.
Most frustrating of all are the glaring issues neither major party will touch, and the corruption. The US military is ridiculously huge, because everyone is so scared of terrorists, Commies, Muslims, narcos, pirates, or whatever other bad guy label is handy. Our crumbling, crowded, aging highways kill far more citizens, but that doesn't get near the love and cash the military gets. The way we talk, if a terrorist blows up one bridge, we might trash their whole nation in return, but if a truck accidentally takes out that same bridge, or after years of neglect it collapses under the weight of rush hour traffic, that's just "shit happens". Then there's the abysmal handling of the housing bubble that burst in 2007. Have no doubt that Obama and the Democrats won election in 2008 because the Republicans handled Wall Street crime so badly and corruptly. But what do the Democrats do about Wall Street? Not much. Take cash, same as the Republicans did.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:26AM
Global Warming really is real
Yea, sure. And Jesus saves, Scientology is the straight dope, etc. Just happen to have this [anonymousconservative.com] is another tab. Have fun with the link as as, but do click through to the more mainstream referenced article if you don't like alt-right thoughts... Wouldn't want you too triggered.
He's at best a protest candidate, attractive to Republicans who are so fed up
By my reckoning Trump represents something far better. The death of the Republican Party, a death long overdue. And with luck the passing of Conservatism into the wilderness, having failed to Conserve anything of note going all the way back to Burke this too is overdue. Choosing whether to lose quickly or slowly is not much of a choice. Actually moving the ball in a different direction sounds like a far better option than a constant prevent defense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:33PM
I'm trying to work away from outrage so I can see the humor behind your thinking. If you want to shake up the system, vote third party so that it becomes a reality. When two parties take all the power, the third will play to the people's desires just to get back in the game. The fact that you think Trump will kill off the republicans, or really shake up anything except our foreign policy, is so ludicrous I don't know what to really say. I used to be more outraged by the weird and almost willful ignorance regarding Trump, but for my own peace of mind I'm trying to just see the humorous side of this whole mess.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:45PM
Trump need do nothing, it has already happened. Raise your hand if you think the rift between the Trump "MAGA" folks, the Alt-Right, the traditional conservatives and the #NeverTrump forces can be healed, regardless what happens in Nov. The foundational compromise that the current Republican "Washington Generals" Party was built upon has been shattered beyond repair. Something new must now arise, something that will probably incorporate a couple of the factions but with entirely new priorities, goals and strategy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:55PM
Extract puppet #1, replace with puppet #2, rebrand with a new compassionate message and unite against the damn socialists.
SHABAM, republicans are back in business. People will be angry, but only a small fraction will retain that anger as the political drama unfolds and the politicians promise to "fix" everything. Little did you know that "fix" means corrupt.
And hey, I'm bipartisan here, fuck the dems too for the same shady bullshit. Until we get a third party we stand zero chance of making a difference. Then it will be quickly corrupted by ideological spies and/or good ol' brainwashing propaganda. We need to fix the systemic issues, and these pissing matches between reps and dems has shit all to do with it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:33AM
If the Republicans want to win they need to move towards the center. Jettison:
-- the religious nuts - teaching creationism as science is nuts.
-- the gun nuts -- agree on a sensible gun policy that ban assault rifles and large magazines
-- the fossil fuel nuts -- oil will be around for a long time but they don't need to make it so easy. Global warming is a fact and changing the composition of the atmosphere can't be good.
-- the abortion nuts -- that ship sailed and shouldn't return as the majority of Americans have expressed.
-- my way or the highway -- you will never get everything you want. Compromise.
-- war on drugs -- marijuana is coming and it is Better than alcohol
-- war on immigration -- these are your future voters, embrace them, they are not bad people.
Move towards:
--fiscal conservatism -- but pay for what you buy. If you want a war, raise taxes to pay for it.
-- sensible health care -- nobody should die or suffer because they don't have money
-- making sure corporations a act responsibly -- I see them as sharks eating the little people.
-- narrowing the difference between rich and poor -- we need classes, but a growing gap didn't work out so well for the French in 1789, or the Russians in 1917. The one percent's can't spend what they have now, and don't need more.
-- a sensible education system -- everybody doesn't need to be college educated, but this country needs to be smarter overall. Learning a trade should be easier.
And don't be so mean
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:55AM
Okay.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:06PM
FU, socialist. You idiots think you are going to be able to destroy america without bloodshed? You can't steal enough to prepare enough to get away with it. All the bootlickers who are supporting this attempt will be eradicated as the moles they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:03PM
Now, Bernard, remember what we talked about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:30AM
Really well summarized, completely agree.
Until they start on this list, I don't see myself ever voting Republican. It sucks, because I am as pro government reduction as they come.
At the end of the day the government's job is basic protection & facilitation of commerce the country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:52PM
> He was surrounded by people who were convinced that the polls with the best reputations for accuracy were unsound and biased in favor of the Democrats.
That shit is happening again, exactly the same as a before. Literally the same.
There were people dedicated to "unskewing the polls" for romney and now they are unskewing the polls for trump. [rightwingwatch.org]
Its like political fan-fiction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:00PM
The only poll that matters is the survey of voting machine programmers.
(Score: 2) by nyder on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:05AM
I find it weird they aren't blaming the Russians for this. I mean, shit, Hillary even said in the debates, Russia is all about fucking with voting via the internet. Hillary wouldn't lie to us would she?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:48AM
> I find it weird they aren't blaming the Russians for this.
Maybe you should research why "they" (aka the NSA and the FBI) have been blaming the Russians.
The russian motive isn't necessarily to get trump elected, it is to destroy faith in the us electoral system because (a) putin blames the US for ukraine kicking his puppet president out and (b) so he can tu quoque the US when it complains about how totally rigged russian elections are. Fucking with some random online poll accomplishes neither of those goals. Dumbasses like you believing the FBI is making up excuses for clinton when comey clearly does not like her does help accomplish those goals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:16PM
What faith? You think voters have faith in this POS system? No there is no faith, only a mix of desperation and apathy at this point, and Russia had NOTHING to do with that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:02PM
> You think voters have faith in this POS system?
Yes. At least 40% of the population. [wikipedia.org]
Just because you are a fool doesn't make everyone else a fool.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RantyRantington on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:15AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:11AM
> The biggest false narrative is that any decent human beings stand to win anything with this election.
We can argue about that. But what isn't up for debate is that hundreds of millions of decent human beings stand to lose a lot if the fireclown wins the election. His tax plan is all about fucking the 99% and with a republican congress, it will pass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:46AM
People who want the government to respect the Constitution and everyone's liberties will lose no matter who wins, though maybe Trump would be a bit worse. Both of them support mass surveillance, are against encryption, are in support of organizations like the TSA, and generally support the very rights-violating intelligence community that violates people's rights on a massive scale every single day.
Though, it is the act of mindlessly voting for the perceived 'lesser evil' that got us into this situation in the first place. Why not continue it for the next several decades, so we can keep our corrupt, authoritarian duopoly? That's a great idea that demonstrates long-term thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:06PM
> Though, it is the act of mindlessly voting for the perceived 'lesser evil' that got us into this situation in the first place.
Actually, its the act of mindlessly assuming there is such a thing as pure good that got us into this situation in the first place. All politics is compromise. You pick what matters most to you and focus on what you can actually achieve. Anything else is a fatalism that plays right into the hands of the people who want to make sure they get the most and you get the least. Stop letting your vote be determined by grade-school logic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:02PM
A bit worse under drumpf? He's a fucking fascist that wants to suck Putin's dick. As bad as its going to be under Hillary, it would be many times worse under drumpf.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:52AM
Having four inches of my arms removed with a belt sander, or eight inches. You're blind if you fail to see why it doesn't matter so long as literal criminal behavior is accepted and supported by individual USians, as the US fedgov still gets more than 75% of its monetary resources from personal income tax returns. (On that note, I've heard tell of slavery in ancient Egypt amounting to coughing up 20% of your earnings to the Pharaoh.)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:13AM
Absolutely. It's about time that the press learned something about integrity and ethics as well as the fact that just because you can print something, doesn't mean you should print it.
Freedom of the press exists because allowing the government to set the rules is dangerous, they can easily set rules that prevent the public from ever finding out about various embarrassing things that they're doing. But, that does not require the press to post anything they want to. Part of having freedom is exercising restraint and judgment at times.
In this case, they gave Trump several billions of dollars in free advertising every time he said something ridiculous or outlandish they put it on screen hoping for viewers. On the Democratic side, they spent a huge amount of time covering for Clinton's obvious inadequacies and towing the party line that Clinton's win was inevitable and ignored the serious election fraud in places like CA and RI. They didn't just find that there weren't problems, they actively ignored those stories because they wanted to be on Clinton's good side. They failed miserably to hold her feet to the fire about the months long lack of press conferences and the fact that Clinton was completely absent from the campaign trail for over a month while she went around looking for donations from wealthy donors.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:30PM
And there you have it, the raison d'etre for Hillary's campaign. It's all about the dollars. Does that deserve your vote, ye Hillary supporters?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:36PM
Francis, that ship has long since sailed. An AC upthread listed all the intimate links between the press and government, who's married to whom, etc. It's that way with nearly every other function of government, too. The revolving door has pervaded all aspects of it. That's why you have corrupt hedge fund guys running the SEC, and who rotate out to plush do-nothing jobs in the hedge funds every couple of years. They are all on the same team together, and that team is always playing against the other team, which is us.
It has to be said again and again until people wake up from the fever dream that is Left vs. Right, Republican vs. Democrat, and accept the reality, which is that it is 1% vs. 99% (for lack of a better, contemporary characterization).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:55AM
That shit will be comedy gold. the sjw party losing.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:38PM
I'd like to see the power elites triggered into a mass exodus to their island fortresses, just in time to see the rising seas from the global warming they caused drown them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:21AM
For Cowboy Neal.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:43AM
Just like the written and saved obituaries for elderly notables, so too were many of these debate "analysis" stories written in advance. Media outlets like NYT and HuffPost were predictably touting Her Majesty's victory, despite the overwhelming use of dog whistles and meaningless "oopsie" about her email server scam. Their best efforts were in quoting a bunch of cowardly Republican politicians who already were against Trump from the start.
With the way Hillary's apparatus stabbed Bernie in the back, and Trump's larger than life persona, it is no surprise the yoith would rally for Trump. Just the fact that a former war monger Republican President would come out for a hawkish national destroyer further reinforces that Trump is the candidate of change.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:15AM
> With the way Hillary's apparatus stabbed Bernie in the back,
He was so mortally wounded that he's campaigning for her hard. And he wasn't even a democrat before he ran for president.
Get out of your bubble. The internet has everything you need to educate yourself, your choice swim in the murky waters of conspiracy and irrationality is such a waste.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:17AM
It's not just the ones that jump ship for the GOP ticket this year, those of us that refuse to vote for either Clinton or Trump are also a problem for her. A disproportionate number of voters that refuse to vote for the major party candidates are coming from the traditionally Democratic side of the spectrum, which means that she'd have to do even better with the independents and conservatives to make up the difference. Unfortunately for her, the conservatives have probably never hated a candidate as much as they hate her. Her husband is probably the only person that comes close, but I think she's elbowed him out for the top spot.
She's still under the assumption that she's winning with the progressives and liberals and I think enough of us are sick of being taken for granted that she's going to lose those votes. And probably by enough that she loses the election.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:51AM
Now isn't the time to vote third party, and nor was any other election. Every election is the most important election in history to the mental midgets that make up most of the electorate, and therefore we must continue to use a strategy which has proven to cause massive long-term harm: Mindlessly vote for the lesser evil. It may not have successfully removed our two-party system (i.e. basically one of the most important changes that we need to bring about) for the last few centuries, but this time it'll work for sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:25PM
After the first sentence I was looking for the -1 shill mod option, but in the end I went for +1 Touche. Well done.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:41AM
In an election system with representative voting, it is common practice that when e.g. the Greens campaign with a particularly good idea, the Social Democrats and other parties close to the Greens in the 2-D political compass "steal" it, by saying: "you don't have to be so extreme to vote Green, our party will also address this issue if you vote for us".
This is a win-win situation: regardless of who wins, the issue has become more paramount in the country's psyche, and will surely be addressed if the Greens end up as a minority partner in a governing coalition, and even likely, in a diluted form, if the Social Democrats govern with a party from further right (e.g. Christian Democrats).
After all, politics should be about that the people's issues are addressed. The fame and fortune for the politicians should just be a perk for them that we the people allow.
Translated to the USA: I don't understand why Hillary Clinton didn't say: "If you make me president, I will also take into account several of the issues raised by Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein", to "steal" those voters away.
FPTP voting systems are always so combative! If you are for the one party, you HAVE to be against the other party/parties. The reality is that consensus governing is a quite normal thing for most of us evolved primates.
Maybe politicians should be more like Bonobos, less like Gorillas?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:50PM
Because she has no credibility. She can't even tell the truth about having pneumonia (if in fact that's what her illness was), she's such a reflexive liar. If she can't even tell the truth about something so basic, so eminently understandable, then how can she be trusted on big things? Oh, "I'm wearing red today (when she's wearing blue), and you can trust me to shut down the TPP!" ?
People who supported Bernie are the party's base. They're the ones who show up to vote in every election, no matter how obscure. They turn out to canvass, poll watch, and do all the hard, tedious work of politics. They pay attention to the issues. Likewise the Greens, who are so few because they only retain the most fanatical; they pay attention and know the issues. None of those people will be taken in by the promises of a candidate who is not really their candidate, proven by the revelations that the DNC rigged the primary for her. At most they'll vote for Hillary out of fear of Trump, a fear that's been stoked by the Clintons and all their cronies and surrogates in every corrupt height in the country. But they won't do it gladly, and they won't go out of their way for her. People who ordinarily stand out in the rain for hours for Democratic candidates haven't even bothered themselves to put signs in their windows for her this time. I live in the People's Republic of Park Slope, Brooklyn, and I haven't seen one blessed sign for Hillary Clinton. Not one.
I hope that all those people, instead of voting for Hillary, vote for Jill Stein. A very big, loud, and clear message needs to be sent to the DNC, that progressives are not to be taken for granted any more.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Francis on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:23AM
I mostly agree, except for that bit about the Greens. The Greens remain a minor party because they show up every four years, have a barely noticeable campaign and then wait for the next Presidential election.
I'm sure they are doing more than that, but parties do best when they work their way up. Getting a Green party candidate elected to state and local offices increases the visibility of the party. And most of those down ticket elections are much less expensive to run for. A million dollars is more than enough for some of those state races. A few thousand might even be enough for city council positions.
As parties get more low members elected to low level parties it increases their visibility as well as their ability to fund raise. Trying to win the Presidency without working from the bottom up is highly unlikely to work.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:34AM
Just like the written and saved obituaries for elderly notables, so too were many of these debate "analysis" stories written in advance. Media outlets like NYT and HuffPost were predictably touting Her Majesty's victory, despite the overwhelming use of dog whistles and meaningless "oopsie" about her email server scam. Their best efforts were in quoting a bunch of cowardly Republican politicians who already were against Trump from the start.
Fivethirtyeight [fivethirtyeight.com] and the NYT as well as many other organs live blogged the debates.
I'll let you do your own google-fu to find those. I know you won't because it runs contrary to the narrative in which you're you're invested.
Or, you could shock the hell out of everyone and actually delve into some real information. Shocking idea, isn't it?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:23PM
I don't get how people are still fooled by this ringmaster. He certainly will bring about change though. He will change the minds of every american who voted for him to wishing they hadn't. If the conservatives think Obama was a big dud, just wait till they get their darling dr dolittle in office. The best we can expect is a very mediocre presidency and at worst another woodrow wilson or Bush jr. All we need is one good national crisis like another 9-11 and that politically impotent charlatan will crumble. It takes way more than big mouth to convince me you are worthy of such an important title.
Hillary I wont even begin to touch. She damaged herself enough and is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A two faced republicrat is a better description. Neither of these two clowns is worthy of a real American vote. How we got here is a great example of how poorly Americans are educated and taught to think critically and more importantly, think for themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:07PM
And when he crumbles, he's going to declare martial law and start launching nukes, because thats what his idol Putin would do. Its not going to be pretty.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:29PM
I wish somebody with deep pockets would mount an independent run. It would have to be a real iconoclast, though, because not many wealthy people remain who don't owe their wealth to the protection and scheming of the old boy network. The last time it happened it was a wealthy guy with deep pockets and a zeal for justice who was never supposed to sit in the big chair and only got there through historical accident (Teddy Roosevelt). He ushered in a raft of progressive changes that built American national wealth and power for the last century, and which the corrupt 1% have now almost completely undone.
If such a person could be found, however, I think he or she could win. Even as a total unknown, with no real money or name recognition, the Libertarian candidate Johnson is polling at 8%. If you think about it, that's exceptionally good under the circumstances. Somebody who could hire real PR firms and political operators and build a real viable third party would walk away with most of the Independents and the base of both major parties.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:28PM
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Trump won the debate. He not only lost, he lost big time. The two biggest sound bites are Trump sniffing repeatedly, and Trump answering Hillary's rhetorical question about whether he paid zero Federal taxes by saying "because I'm smart".
That's why his campaign is suggesting he'll skip the other two.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:02AM
Oh, yes, Donald should skip the next two debates. Why wait until election day to concede when he could just get it over with now? That would definitely be an historic moment in American presidential politics!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:24AM
You may be getting trolled right now without even knowing it.
*starts nervously sweating profusely*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:20AM
So is soylentnews going to end up getting a continuous stream of CTR spam, or is there something the non-paid, non-shill users can do about this before this spreads?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:55AM
What is "CTR"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:29PM
Correct the Record [wikipedia.org]. "In April 2016, Correct the Record announced that it would be spending $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about Clinton."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:52PM
CTR = "Click-thru rate?"
You do know that Soylent is a not for profit, right? Soylent doesn't sell advertising at all. Nobody gets paid.
Soylent is not Slashdot.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:33PM
CTR = "Click-thru rate?"
You do know that Soylent is a not for profit, right? Soylent doesn't sell advertising at all. Nobody gets paid.
Soylent is not Slashdot.
I was curious about what "CTR" referred to as well, and came to the conclusion that AC was referring to this CTR [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:45AM
Good find. Don't know that that CTR is any less silly than the accusation I thought he meant, though. Soylent has ardent, bright lights of all stripes. It's incorrect to accuse it of being right-wing, left-wing, or any-wing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:33PM
I deleted three election related submissions before this one went up, so no.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday September 28 2016, @07:05AM
I live in Australia, where we have a long history of rooting for the underdog (or, if you prefer, cutting down the tall poppy). For that reason, our politicians fear very strong poll results, as it will usually result in undecided voters going the other way in protest. For that reason, stacking a poll in your candidate's favour is a really good way to ensure that your candidate loses.
My limited understanding of the US'ian psyche is that you like to back a winner. Does this mean that it will be more likely that undecided voters will vote for the person who is in front? I'd like to understand why people would do that. Is it because they think that "More people agreeing" == "Better ideas" == "More electable"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:59AM
Polls are manipulated in an attempt to try to discourage people on the "losing" side to not bother going to the polls because "their candidate is going to lose anyway".
I don't know how well (or if) it works, but there sure are some enthusiastic people putting a lot of effort into doing it every election season.
(Score: 2) by romlok on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:52AM
It's also possible to see it the other way around - if your "side" is winning in the polls, why bother going out to vote when you're going to win anyway?
Which could suggest that the poll-stuffing is being done by the "losing" side, trying to get Trump supporters to stay at home feeling smug.
I do wonder which interpretation has a more powerful effect overall. Surely there must be studies into this effect?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:34PM
That doesn't work in Oz. We have compulsory voting. If you have to go vote, you may as well vote for who-ever you prefer;
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by stretch611 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:33AM
I agree, this type of poll rigging seems doomed to fail. While we do not necessarily go for the underdog here in the US (and sadly, they seem to generally go for the popular one to be on the winning side) Making the race seem closer than it really is will only increase turnout.
When people feel their candidate will win by a large margin, many will stay home and not vote. If the race appears to be a close battle it will only increase voter turnout and all the hillary supporters will get off their ass and vote.
Personally, i hope for low voter turnout... to increase the percentage of 3rd party results. I doubt they will win... But I will go out and vote 3rd party... Once they get a significant margin, people may start thinking 3rd parties might become viable.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 4, Funny) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:52PM
I live in Australia, where we have a long history of rooting for the underdog
Given the Australian meaning of 'rooting', that's a very odd mental image.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:16PM
My limited understanding of the US'ian psyche...
What does Mr. Bolt [wikipedia.org], who you seem to be on a first name basis with, have to do with it?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:53AM
If a third party wants to make headway in this country, it needs to pass out three-sided dice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:02AM
What would a three-sided die look like? I'm having a very hard time visualizing one.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:26AM
Kind of like an American football, pointed at the ends but with 3 sides, each being kind of "eye-shaped" There are other ways to do it as well, including some that actually have more than 3 sides, but this is probably the simplest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:38AM
Well, I'll be darned [thingiverse.com]. Thanks!
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:39AM
Why not substitute half the sides of a normal dice?
compiling...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Nerdfest on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:20PM
Because that wouldn't be three-sided, it would be three-numbered. You also need to be careful, as for many of us, substituting half the sides on a normal die would still leave us with ten.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:28PM
Yeah, like a six-sided die (cube) repeating 1-3 once.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:23AM
It looks the same way that one hand clapping sounds. I'm sure you will understand what I mean.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:01PM
I'd point out that it's indicative of the enthusiasm gap that Trump supporters would be willing to do something like that, whereas nobody will lift a finger for Hillary. Hillary is loathed by conservatives and by the Democratic base. Independents never show up for anything political until election day, and even then can find any number of more useful things to do on that day like picking up the dog crap in the backyard. The urban poor who have the jackboot of the Democratic party machine on their necks will vote for Hillary because they have no choice. A handful of Baby Boomer, thrice-divorced women in the suburbs will vote for her because they're bitter and hate men, but who else will? Millenials will vote for Johnson, Stein, or write in Bernie, but will most likely prefer to play Xbox, get drunk, or hook up on Tinder that day. Gen-X and everyone else will vote for Trump; the farsighted ones will have long since liquidated their US holdings and emigrated to New Zealand.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:33PM
I suppose no one expected the amount of popularity (or "popularity", if you will) that Trump would be getting, even if it's for all the wrong reasons.
Now that the dark horse/jobber is actually quite popular, everyone is going to be panicking.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:28PM
The real message is that you shouldn't make up your mind based on what an anonymous collection of other people think. Anonymous people can present arguments, but YOU should decide whether those arguments are valid. Argument from authority is invalid, but it's good as gold compared to argument from an anonymous group of people, much less argument from an internet poll.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.