ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Just looked at realclearpolitics.com polling page. If you guys are right, and the polls are cooked, there's going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces - and the LA Times is going to come out smelling roses. Right now the average of 9 current polls has Hillary +7. LA Times has it Tromp +2, but the other eight are Clinton +4, +5, +7, +8, +8, +10, +11, +12.

IOW, somebody is way wrong - either the LA Times, or everyone else......
 
The voter fraud that the democrat operative admits to is that the Dems have been bussing people across state lines to vote. There is a reason Liberals are strongly against voter ID laws.
 
The voter fraud that the democrat operative admits to is that the Dems have been bussing people across state lines to vote. There is a reason Liberals are strongly against voter ID laws.
I must have skipped over that part. I skipped to like six different places and it was always the same stuff.

Yeah. Don't do that.

As Jason said, though,

doesn't matter.
 
Yep, I missed the word almost, as its almost there, but isnt...(also, looks like you deleted your quote, but I have it quoted a few pages back). So once again, another dumbass argument of yours debunked.

Of course I lean left you clown, anyone on this board knows that. However, unlike you, I am not a slave or sheep to a certain dogma. I praise truth. I am all for the Wikileaks. I think Obama effectively killed part of this country with its spying program. The problem with you, is you dont have independent thought. The divide for me isnt politics, its intellect. I vote for republicans and democrats, hence independent. I think social programs are needed, however, I think they are abused all to hell.

My issue as that too many people dont understand the good things government. Government can work effectively, just dont be wasteful. I am for being fiscally conservative, a principal the republicans lost. I believe in a strong military, the right to bear arms, but I also believe in freedom to be who the touch you want to be. If you are gay, like Kopi, get married, I dont care. Its none of my business. Government shouldnt be involved in that. I think it should all marriages should be civil unions, let marriage be part of your religion. And yes, BLM and SJW are dumb, but they are so fed up, they are trying to do something. Besides a Trump rally or safe space, what have you done to change your community?

People are more complex than just one issue. Its ok to have different opinions than the masses. Its ok to actually think for yourself. But that isnt you. This is why I am left. I believe in the power of expression and the open exchange of ideas. You believe in subjugation and fear.

I have worked and volunteered in non-profits and government for years. I was the first non-male marine in my family. I am also the first one with a college degree plus grad degrees. I owe it all to the sacrifices that my family and other military have made.

Instead of just preaching about how this country should be, I actually go out to the streets and help people. What have you done clown, besides take? How have you given back to your community to make it better? I may not agree with Warrior Cat on a lot of things, but I respect the hell out of him for what he did for our country. You speak of love for our country, like many of you cons, but what have you really done? I love our country so much, that I have sacrificed working in the private sector. I believe its everyone's responsibility to give back, to become a good citizen. Not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country. Yet you complain about the left, touch son, you do nothing but drink the same milk as BLM. So you want to act righteous? Im cool with that, but at least back it up with something more than "dirty lib." Chump.

Are you full dumbass or just half?

Post is right there, #42536

Heres your dumbasness in essence:

Writing 4 paragraphs detailing how stupid someone else because they dont understand how someone is an independent, right after you answer a question that asked "doesnt it bother any of you liberals..." and you reply with "it bothers this lib". Lol youre a walking contradiction.


But fine ill reply like you do. Im smarter than you, im more educated than you, i have betrer kids than you, my wifes hotter than your wife/husband, i understand markets better than you. Youre just a stupid lib who cant remember half the crap youve spewed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KopiKat
The head of the FBI did a months long investigation into the matter and says she shouldn't be indicted. Tell me why some other random FBI agent's opinion is more important than the one that was tasked with reviewing all the evidence?
You answered your own question "Head of FBI" offered a job?
 
Thousands of people were gathered around the embassy, people steaming it on the internet, when mysteriously the streams were cut! Oh no! Rumors then began to swirl that a mysterious group had entered the embassy during the time! Oh no! Thousand of eye witnesses and no story! Right. Lmaoooo. GTFO.

I think you have made a good point, in sort of a maddening way, but valid, yes. But I'm curious, exactly what would you expect the crowd to see? Other than a dark car or two go in . . . a dark car or two come out?
 
Tell me why some other random FBI agent's opinion is more important than the one that was tasked with reviewing all the evidence?

Wasn't some random FBI agent. Every single agent who investigated the case believes Hillary should have been brought up on charges; or at the least lost her security clearance.

The only one who didn't was Comey. We shouldn't have to explain to you what took place here. Top down decision.

On top of that, these other FBI agents have been muzzled. Comey made them all sign non disclosure agreements, so that they couldn't speak out on record.
 
Good for him. That ought to piss off a lot of Senate and House members.
On both sides. Think maybe support for him in the GOP was bad before, watch to see what happens now. Think he might have shot himself in the foot on that one. Foot in mouth was earlier problems now, premature weapons discharge.
 
Hillary sex scandal breaking. One of her fixers is coming forward telling how he arranged for Hillary to have sex trysts with both men and women. Guy was on her payroll for over 20 years and has documented proof. So he says.

397F7E9200000578-3849032-image-a-128_1476820315491.jpg


http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-plot-Monica-Bill-s-affair-list-actress.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigSexyCat
"They can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees"

HRC speaking to the Jewish United Fund, 3 years ago. But she had all you libs convinced we are vetting the 65k she wants brought in yearly. Give me a fluggin break.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moe_schmoe
Hillary sex scandal breaking. One of her fixers is coming forward telling how he arranged for Hillary to have sex trysts with both men and women. Trump should bring it up in the debate.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/

If below is true, & they really have all these documents, notes, journals etc... & they check out as legit, the "It's the National Enquirer" excuse isn't going to fly.

In the bombshell exposé, The ENQUIRER will reveal the fixer’s dossier of smoking gun proof, including 24-years of documents, notes, and journals.
 
I think you have made a good point, in sort of a maddening way, but valid, yes. But I'm curious, exactly what would you expect the crowd to see? Other than a dark car or two go in . . . a dark car or two come out?

No names. No quotes. No pictures. No addresses. Nothing. There is/was no crowd.

If that was true, yea, I would expect to see a slew a pics, showing crowd, the mysterious unnamed group entering the embassy, some documentation of the u-stream mysteriously cutting out, etc. And all that would be on the major news networks because that's fn nuts, documented, and could not be ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KopiKat
Wiki "had" a big play. Assange will give it up now. The pain management center is far beyond the limits of his will.

Wikileaks has made huge files available for download in the past, and people all over the world have downloaded those files. The only thing people are waiting on is the encryption key. Assange has alluded to a "dead man's switch" in the past, but hasn't provided the details on what actually triggers the release. One would think he's planned for a scenario where he's swept up by the CIA and tortured.

Or so I've gathered from reading the internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KopiKat

Sean Blanda

Now: making ideas happen at @behance & @99u. Before: Co-founder of @TechnicallyM, @phillytechweek & @TechnicallyPHL.
Jan 7
The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion.” The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue” — only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make a excellent president.”

Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!”

In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias.” This bias often manifests itself when we see TV ratings (“Who the hell are all these people that watch NCIS?”) or in politics (“Everyone I know is for stricter gun control! Who are these backwards rubes that disagree?!”) or polls (“Who are these people voting for Ben Carson?”).

Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends or, more broadly, America. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it,” and is clearly not as intelligent as “us.” But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.


1*t8PO8ohDFLwgsxsvPr8dBQ.png

The Economist tracks what media is talking about vs. the habits of actual people.
What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb.”

Fredrik deBoer, one of my favorite writers around, touched on this in his Essay “Getting Past the Coalition of the Cool.” He writes:

[The Internet] encourages people to collapse any distinction between their work life, their social life, and their political life. “Hey, that person who tweets about the TV shows I likealso dislikes injustice,” which over time becomes “I can identify an ally by the TV shows they like.” The fact that you can mine a Rihanna video for political content becomes, in that vague internety way, the sense that people who don’t see political content in Rihanna’s music aren’t on your side.
When someone communicates that they are not “on our side” our first reaction is to run away or dismiss them as stupid. To be sure, there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire. I’m instead referencing those who actually believe in an opposing viewpoint of a complicated issue, and do so for genuine, considered reasons. Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours.


1*csiyD7U9kJWUInGnHSWovw.png

Source: Esquire/NBC News poll
This is not a “political correctness” issue. It’s a fundamental rejection of the possibility to consider that the people who don’t feel the same way you do might be right. It’s a preference to see the Other Side as a cardboard cut out, and not the complicated individual human beings that they actually are.

What happens instead of genuine intellectual curiosity is the sharing of Slate or Onion or Fox News or Red State links. Sites that exist almost solely to produce content to be shared so friends can pat each other on the back and mock the Other Side. Look at the Other Side! So dumb and unable to see this the way I do!

Sharing links that mock a caricature of the Other Side isn’t signaling that we’re somehow more informed. It signals that we’d rather be smug assholes than consider alternative views. It signals that we’d much rather show our friends that we’re like them, than try to understand those who are not.

It’s impossible to consider yourself a curious person and participate in social media in this way. We cannot consider ourselves “empathetic” only to turn around and belittle those who don’t agree with us.

On Twitter and Facebook this means we prioritize by sharing stuff that will garner approval of our peers over stuff that’s actually, you know, true. We share stuff that ignores wider realities, selectively shares information, or is just an outright falsehood. The misinformation is so rampant that the Washington Post stopped publishing its internet fact-checking column because people didn’t seem to care if stuff was true.

Where debunking an Internet fake once involved some research, it’s now often as simple as clicking around for an “about” or “disclaimer” page. And where a willingness to believe hoaxes once seemed to come from a place of honest ignorance or misunderstanding, that’s frequently no longer the case. Headlines like “Casey Anthony found dismembered in truck” go viral via old-fashioned schadenfreude — even hate.…Institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it’s demonstrably fake.
The solution, as deBoer says, “You have to be willing to sacrifice your carefully curated social performance and be willing to work with people who are not like you.” In other words you have to recognize that the Other Side is made of actual people.


But I’d like to go a step further. We should all enter every issue with the very real possibility that we might be wrong this time.

Isn’t it possible that you, reader of Medium and Twitter power user, like me, suffer from this from time to time? Isn’t it possible that we’re not right about everything? That those who live in places not where you live, watch shows that you don’t watch, and read books that you don’t read, have opinions and belief systems just as valid as yours? That maybe you don’t see the entire picture?

Think political correctness has gotten out of control? Follow the many great social activists on Twitter. Think America’s stance on guns is puzzling? Read the stories of the 31% of Americans that own a firearm. This is not to say the Other Side is “right” but that they likely have real reasons to feel that way. And only after understanding those reasons can a real discussion take place.


1*P4eh08ddGc_lP8ip0nMpUA.jpeg

Source
As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for them, you don’t truly grasp the issue. We can bemoan political gridlock and a divisive media all we want. But we won’t truly progress as individuals until we make an honest effort to understand those that are not like us. And you won’t convince anyone to feel the way you do if you don’t respect their position and opinions.

A dare for the next time you’re in discussion with someone you disagree with: Don’t try to “win.” Don’t try to “convince” anyone of your viewpoint. Don’t score points by mocking them to your peers. Instead try to “lose.” Hear them out. Ask them to convince you and mean it. No one is going to tell your environmentalist friends that you merely asked follow up questions after your brother made his pro-fracking case.

Or, the next time you feel compelled to share a link on social media about current events, ask yourself why you are doing it. Is it because that link brings to light information you hadn’t considered? Or does it confirm your world view, reminding your circle of intellectual teammates that you’re not on the Other Side?

I implore you to seek out your opposite. When you hear someone cite “facts” that don’t support your viewpoint don’t think “that can’t be true!” Instead consider, “Hm, maybe that person is right? I should look into this.”

Because refusing to truly understand those who disagree with you is intellectual laziness and worse, is usually worse than what you’re accusing the Other Side of doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Midway Cat
Honestly, how in the hell could you vote for Hillary over a guy who wants to protect borders, get rid of career corrupt politicians and isn't owned by anyone compared to a career corrupt criminal, wants open borders, is against the second amendment andnit's owned by Soros and Wall Street and Islamic nations?
 
  • Like
Reactions: P19978
Because we need the world. We don't make shit. We need to sell our bullshit western Hollywood lifestyle to the world. We need to make LGBT progress all over the globe! We need to end tobacco use! There are so many things we need to do for the world ;) $$$$$$$$.
 

Sean Blanda

Now: making ideas happen at @behance & @99u. Before: Co-founder of @TechnicallyM, @phillytechweek & @TechnicallyPHL.
Jan 7
The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion.” The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue” — only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make a excellent president.”

Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!”

In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias.” This bias often manifests itself when we see TV ratings (“Who the hell are all these people that watch NCIS?”) or in politics (“Everyone I know is for stricter gun control! Who are these backwards rubes that disagree?!”) or polls (“Who are these people voting for Ben Carson?”).

Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends or, more broadly, America. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it,” and is clearly not as intelligent as “us.” But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.


1*t8PO8ohDFLwgsxsvPr8dBQ.png

The Economist tracks what media is talking about vs. the habits of actual people.
What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb.”

Fredrik deBoer, one of my favorite writers around, touched on this in his Essay “Getting Past the Coalition of the Cool.” He writes:

[The Internet] encourages people to collapse any distinction between their work life, their social life, and their political life. “Hey, that person who tweets about the TV shows I likealso dislikes injustice,” which over time becomes “I can identify an ally by the TV shows they like.” The fact that you can mine a Rihanna video for political content becomes, in that vague internety way, the sense that people who don’t see political content in Rihanna’s music aren’t on your side.
When someone communicates that they are not “on our side” our first reaction is to run away or dismiss them as stupid. To be sure, there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire. I’m instead referencing those who actually believe in an opposing viewpoint of a complicated issue, and do so for genuine, considered reasons. Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours.


1*csiyD7U9kJWUInGnHSWovw.png

Source: Esquire/NBC News poll
This is not a “political correctness” issue. It’s a fundamental rejection of the possibility to consider that the people who don’t feel the same way you do might be right. It’s a preference to see the Other Side as a cardboard cut out, and not the complicated individual human beings that they actually are.

What happens instead of genuine intellectual curiosity is the sharing of Slate or Onion or Fox News or Red State links. Sites that exist almost solely to produce content to be shared so friends can pat each other on the back and mock the Other Side. Look at the Other Side! So dumb and unable to see this the way I do!

Sharing links that mock a caricature of the Other Side isn’t signaling that we’re somehow more informed. It signals that we’d rather be smug assholes than consider alternative views. It signals that we’d much rather show our friends that we’re like them, than try to understand those who are not.

It’s impossible to consider yourself a curious person and participate in social media in this way. We cannot consider ourselves “empathetic” only to turn around and belittle those who don’t agree with us.

On Twitter and Facebook this means we prioritize by sharing stuff that will garner approval of our peers over stuff that’s actually, you know, true. We share stuff that ignores wider realities, selectively shares information, or is just an outright falsehood. The misinformation is so rampant that the Washington Post stopped publishing its internet fact-checking column because people didn’t seem to care if stuff was true.

Where debunking an Internet fake once involved some research, it’s now often as simple as clicking around for an “about” or “disclaimer” page. And where a willingness to believe hoaxes once seemed to come from a place of honest ignorance or misunderstanding, that’s frequently no longer the case. Headlines like “Casey Anthony found dismembered in truck” go viral via old-fashioned schadenfreude — even hate.…Institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it’s demonstrably fake.
The solution, as deBoer says, “You have to be willing to sacrifice your carefully curated social performance and be willing to work with people who are not like you.” In other words you have to recognize that the Other Side is made of actual people.


But I’d like to go a step further. We should all enter every issue with the very real possibility that we might be wrong this time.

Isn’t it possible that you, reader of Medium and Twitter power user, like me, suffer from this from time to time? Isn’t it possible that we’re not right about everything? That those who live in places not where you live, watch shows that you don’t watch, and read books that you don’t read, have opinions and belief systems just as valid as yours? That maybe you don’t see the entire picture?

Think political correctness has gotten out of control? Follow the many great social activists on Twitter. Think America’s stance on guns is puzzling? Read the stories of the 31% of Americans that own a firearm. This is not to say the Other Side is “right” but that they likely have real reasons to feel that way. And only after understanding those reasons can a real discussion take place.


1*P4eh08ddGc_lP8ip0nMpUA.jpeg

Source
As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for them, you don’t truly grasp the issue. We can bemoan political gridlock and a divisive media all we want. But we won’t truly progress as individuals until we make an honest effort to understand those that are not like us. And you won’t convince anyone to feel the way you do if you don’t respect their position and opinions.

A dare for the next time you’re in discussion with someone you disagree with: Don’t try to “win.” Don’t try to “convince” anyone of your viewpoint. Don’t score points by mocking them to your peers. Instead try to “lose.” Hear them out. Ask them to convince you and mean it. No one is going to tell your environmentalist friends that you merely asked follow up questions after your brother made his pro-fracking case.

Or, the next time you feel compelled to share a link on social media about current events, ask yourself why you are doing it. Is it because that link brings to light information you hadn’t considered? Or does it confirm your world view, reminding your circle of intellectual teammates that you’re not on the Other Side?

I implore you to seek out your opposite. When you hear someone cite “facts” that don’t support your viewpoint don’t think “that can’t be true!” Instead consider, “Hm, maybe that person is right? I should look into this.”

Because refusing to truly understand those who disagree with you is intellectual laziness and worse, is usually worse than what you’re accusing the Other Side of doing.

Brevity, no one is going to read all of this. More pictures and less words and I can read it.
 
Wikileaks has made huge files available for download in the past, and people all over the world have downloaded those files. The only thing people are waiting on is the encryption key. Assange has alluded to a "dead man's switch" in the past, but hasn't provided the details on what actually triggers the release. One would think he's planned for a scenario where he's swept up by the CIA and tortured.

Or so I've gathered from reading the internet.

a short visit to an international pain management clinic and Assange could be coerced to reversing said "switch" yes?
 
The head of the FBI did a months long investigation into the matter and says she shouldn't be indicted. Tell me why some other random FBI agent's opinion is more important than the one that was tasked with reviewing all the evidence?
John Kasich said so
 
The head of the FBI did a months long investigation into the matter and says she shouldn't be indicted. Tell me why some other random FBI agent's opinion is more important than the one that was tasked with reviewing all the evidence?

Just what I figured.

And it won't be just one random FBI agent, they'll interview multiple agents that were involved in the investigation. But that won't matter to you either.
 
THe alternative is scary because it's admitting that or system has failed, to a degree, and man people ain't about to face that reality. What happens to our govt leaders if the people woke the f'd up and just stopped buying the bullshit? I everybody stopped buying shit we don't need. It we started practicing all this hippy stuff we preach about?

That's my favorite thing....the revival of downtown! Focus on your community! Liberals love this, but apply that same exact gd logic to a global scale, and they scoff and call that racist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YourPublicEnemy
a short visit to an international pain management clinic and Assange could be coerced to reversing said "switch" yes?


That would sort of defeat the purpose of having a contingency plan if you could reverse it after a very likely scenario comes to fruition.
 
Just what I figured.

And it won't be just one random FBI agent, they'll interview multiple agents that were involved in the investigation. But that won't matter to you either.
So...if some agree and others disagree? I'm sure there were a dozen or more involved in some way or the other.
 
Just looked at realclearpolitics.com polling page. If you guys are right, and the polls are cooked, there's going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces - and the LA Times is going to come out smelling roses. Right now the average of 9 current polls has Hillary +7. LA Times has it Tromp +2, but the other eight are Clinton +4, +5, +7, +8, +8, +10, +11, +12.

IOW, somebody is way wrong - either the LA Times, or everyone else......
Yet, I get dismissed for posting the un-rigged USA Wide polls showing Trump competitive.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT