Election 2016

koz · Post by **koz** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:31 am

OgreBattle wrote:Hillary's biggest campaign contributor is Saban, the guy who buys the rights to Japanese shows like Super Sentai n' tokusatsu (Kamen Rider) and butchers them for US consumption.

He is also a rather militant supporter of Israel fucking up Palestinians.

Schleiermacher · Post by **Schleiermacher** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:57 am

So, the Department of Justice is stepping up its investigation of Hillary staffers. Any idea what this could mean?

Ted Cruz and his ilk seem convinced it means she's going to be indicted any day now, but... well, they're Ted Cruz and his ilk.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:33 pm

Schleiermacher wrote:So, the Department of Justice is stepping up its investigation of Hillary staffers. Any idea what this could mean?

Ted Cruz and his ilk seem convinced it means she's going to be indicted any day now, but... well, they're Ted Cruz and his ilk.

According to the article you linked, the FBI was so unconcerned that they were willing to give a sysop preemptive immunity just to get him to agree to be interviewed. There remains no evidence that the FBI thinks they any evidence of a crime having occurred.

-Username17

Schleiermacher · Post by **Schleiermacher** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:59 pm

I am not sure how immunity deals are usually made, but as I understand it, this isn't pre-emptive per se, because the last time Pagliano was interviewed about this, he pleaded the Fifth. Obviously I don't know what's been going on behind closed doors here but it seems like a reasonable reading that this is Pagliano setting a condition and the FBI agreeing because they're that interested in what he has to say.

I should state at this point that I absolutely agree with you that there is not and has not been any evidence of a crime having been committed or the FBI necessarily believing that. But I don't read this as being motivated by a lack of concern -if so, then why not just let him take the Fifth and say nothing more of it?

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:15 pm

The FBI is responsible for investigating security breaches whether or not they are criminal in nature. The SysOp presumably can assist in their investigation, so by granting him immunity they can get his help, and if they have no intention of filing charges it costs them nothing.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:45 pm

Brazilian elections are compulsory and happen on a Sunday. Brazilians over 16 years old can get their "electoral title" (this becomes compulsory for those over 18), which is a form of ID that contains personal info (name, etc) and the number of your polling station. Polling stations rarely change: I've been voting for 20+ years in a club near home.

Voting is electronic now, and our polling machines have a button for "blank vote" (it's the white button). If you're particularly angry you can also type a random number that doesn't correspond to any candidate and press confirm to void your vote. Blank and Void votes are counted, but don't contribute to the general result.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:30 pm

A glimpse into the minds of Trump supporters.
It's really disturbing. One of them literally just declares a hatred for progress and tolerance. Others who really seem like they should know better seem to believe in his economic 'plan.'

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:43 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:A glimpse into the minds of Trump supporters.
It's really disturbing. One of them literally just declares a hatred for progress and tolerance. Others who really seem like they should know better seem to believe in his economic 'plan.'

That link wrote:Actions speak louder than words, and he has demonstrated that he is, at heart, a caring person through his many random acts of kindness. His peers say there are “two Trumps” – the brash character he portrays himself as, and the decent man they know behind closed doors. It’s clearly a strategy; his proclamations have kept him on the front pages for a sustained eight months.

"I base my decisions on the theory that everything he has said in every single statement he has made for months is a lie, and that's why I think he will make a great President."

That sounds like a great plan that could never backfire.

Also I see the same dumb thing PR was saying 4 years ago "If only we destroy the country with terrible decisions, everything will be better because killing, death, oppression, and depression couldn't possibly fail to make things wonderful at some future point after all the terror."

"torrents of blog posts" Which of these words does he not understand?

a) Torrent
b) Blog
c) Both

?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:01 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:A glimpse into the minds of Trump supporters.
It's really disturbing. One of them literally just declares a hatred for progress and tolerance. Others who really seem like they should know better seem to believe in his economic 'plan.'

The thing that I noticed as a running theme was the basic temper tantrum nature of all of it. Various people are angry at various stuff, from drone strikes to Muslims to tolerance. And they are taking that anger and voting Trump as a protest. I have no idea how people think that a vote for Donald "I will do things way worse than waterboarding" Trump is going to be interpreted as a vote against drone strikes. I have no idea how people think that a vote for Donald "I am rich and should be allowed to do anything I want" Trump is going to be interpreted as a vote against rich people doing whatever they want.

The only argument that even made any sense was the one where the lady thought that Trump would literally destroy the country and bring about a long needed leftist revolution. I mean, those kinds of people have been around for ever, and they are wrong, but at least I can follow the logic. Make things worse to force the revolutionary change you think is needed, it's counterproductive but you can understand where they are coming from. It's pretty standard supervillain motivation. But of course, even that is basically just a temper tantrum - people lack the patience to work for positive change so they try to burn everything down and start over.

-Username17

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:01 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:A glimpse into the minds of Trump supporters.
It's really disturbing. One of them literally just declares a hatred for progress and tolerance. Others who really seem like they should know better seem to believe in his economic 'plan.'

Those are such a mess. I really, really hope the Guardian people deliberately put up the most provocative and generally crazy responses they received in order to drive page views.

What I really don't understand are the Bernie or Trump people. As candidates they have essentially nothing in common. There's no policy overlap, and Trump's announced tax plan is a the most regressive out of all of the Republican candidates, beating Cruz and Rubio by significant margins. It's one thing to not like Hillary or consider her a creature of a corrupt DC system, but there is simply no progression from that point to voting for Trump. Ugh.

Of the stated positions the only one that I see as even remotely coherent is the hard-core anti-immigration position of the last one. If you're going to vote on Immigration over everything else, and you take a highly restrictionist position, then yes, Trump is probably the closest to your position. That position is ridiculous - while there are significant problems with our current immigration programs and while there is room for debate on changing the direction of US immigration policy - building a wall across the US-Mexico border isn't going to do anything but waste a giant pile of money.

And yet Trump continues to pile up delegates, while Rubio got blanked out of today's collection of primaries. We're very close to a Cruz vs Trump race now, which is both madness and likely a Trump victory.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:08 am

The Bernie or Trump people are basically just of the opinion that the system must be smashed and are receptive to any platform that involves not being the establishment.

I think Rubio might hang on by his fingernails unless and until someone breaks 50% of delegates. He realistically might actually be handed victory in a brokered convention if the establishment decides they'd rather flip the table out of pure spite than let Trump or Cruz win. On the one hand that's a terrible strategy for winning the election and threatens party integrity over the long term, on the other hand Trump is a threat to their power base and the Republican leadership just really fucking hates Ted Cruz.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:27 am

Mechalich wrote:What I really don't understand are the Bernie or Trump people.

If you look at what most of them are saying it amounts to "destroying this country would save it almost as well as saving it!"

Choice quotes such as:

"I began plotting to vote Republican in hopes that the party would send the country so far in the direction of complete unrestricted neoliberalism and libertarian free market superstition that Americans would come to recognize the dangers of these ideologies and eventually reject them."

"His candidacy is a happy accident that is currently ripping the soul of America apart, which is something that I think we desperately need (and deserve) at this time in our history, for better or for worse. I support whatever strange gods happen to be behind his candidacy, for, as Martin Heidegger proclaimed in his famous Der Speigel interview, although for slightly different reasons, “Only a God can save us.""

"I believe that it is too late for a conventional cure. So, there is Trump. He is indeed a buffoon and a recipe for disaster. If he were to do half of the horrific things he says he would, he would be a catastrophe. He could be a blend of Hitler and Hirohito.

That’s why I would vote for him. The last time we crossed paths with a Hitler and/or Hirohito, the country woke up and fought. And won! He might supply us with the shock we need in order to wake up and fight."

"Trump is a wake up call. A president Trump could be as bad as Hitler, but if he shocks some good people in both the Republican and Democratic parties into realizing that they are ignoring legitimate concerns of a seizable minority, then let him have his four years."

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:55 am

I know plenty of non-Americans (who therefore can't vote in your elections) who kind of hope Trump wins because they feel that if he destroys America, the rest of the world is finally free of American bullshit.

I feel they're being very optimistic and that he'd take the rest of the world down as well.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:31 am

So there were a couple of voting thingies yesterday. Nebraska, Kansas, Maine, Louisiana, Kentucky.

On the Democratic side, not much to see. Sanders came up with his expected wins in Nebraska and Kansas, Clinton got her expected win in Louisiana. Bernie won more states, but Hillary won a bigger state by bigger margins, so Hillary got more delegates for the day. Sanders fell short of his demographic target, but only by 3 delegates out of over three thousand pledged delegates overall. So essentially no movement - which is a victory for Hillary of sorts because she is already ahead.

Things are way more interesting on the Republican side. Cruz and Trump split the states, but Cruz won states by bigger margins where he won and came out with more delegates for the day. Marco Rubio also had a very bad day and got few delegates. Kasich still sucks and no one knows what his plan is.

At the end of the day, Trump is still in first place, but he's farther from clinching the nomination. Cruz is gaining on Trump and has a better narrative to be the guy to stop Trump. But everyone still hates Cruz as well, that hasn't actually changed. So we are closer to the dream scenario: a contested convention where the #1 and #2 contenders are completely intolerable. Trump needs 859 out of the remaining 1627 delegates to stop that from happening and everyone else is farther from the goal than that.

We could still see a Trump outright victory. There are some winner take all states, including fucking Florida (99 delegates that probably all go to Trump). But the brokered convention scenario is looking more rather than less likely as things lurch on.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:23 pm

Even if Trump doesn't flip the table over and run third party like he super promised pinkie-swear not to do, you can trust him, having it drawn out to the end, with a brokered convention and arguments and tantrums, is basically the ideal scenario: let them paint themselves as being as petty and disorganised and broken into segments as they are.

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:43 am

Koumei wrote:Even if Trump doesn't flip the table over and run third party like he super promised pinkie-swear not to do, you can trust him, having it drawn out to the end, with a brokered convention and arguments and tantrums, is basically the ideal scenario: let them paint themselves as being as petty and disorganised and broken into segments as they are.

If the Republican primaries lead to a brokered convention and someone else gets the nomination, then I predict that Trump will absolutely run on a third party ticket. I mean, isn't his whole campaign some insane, high stakes form of performance art anyway?

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:51 am

Maj wrote: Fraud is really rare, but absentee ballot fraud is more common than in-person voter fraud.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/artic ... out-fraud/

Even still, a handful of fraudulent absentee ballots is preferable to the throngs of people who are disenfranchised through voter suppression laws.

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:04 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:A glimpse into the minds of Trump supporters.
It's really disturbing. One of them literally just declares a hatred for progress and tolerance. Others who really seem like they should know better seem to believe in his economic 'plan.'

The evangelical pastor wrote: I minister to Hispanic people (most of which disapprove of Trump and some are illegal aliens) and see great contributions that they bring to our particular community. They are great people for the most part. But the rule of law must be followed.

So at least one of Trump supporters doesn't want to blow up the country, he "just" wants to get rid of the filthy non-USA people. Even those that are nice and helpful.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:21 pm

Hiram McDaniels wrote:
Maj wrote: Fraud is really rare, but absentee ballot fraud is more common than in-person voter fraud.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/artic ... out-fraud/
Even still, a handful of fraudulent absentee ballots is preferable to the throngs of people who are disenfranchised through voter suppression laws.

Oh, I totally agree! And I'm not objecting to vote-by-mail at all (my entire state votes via absentee ballot, and I love it). What I am saying is that it's more of a problem, but you don't see anyone trying to pass laws to fix it. It's only to address the kind of voting that sees the least amount of fraud. And you're right - it's just to disenfranchise voters.

Speaking of... Y'all hear about Illinois's proposed law to deny babies of mothers who don't tell who the father is a birth certificate?

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:47 pm

Maj wrote: Speaking of... Y'all hear about Illinois's proposed law to deny babies of mothers who don't tell who the father is a birth certificate?

What the fuck problem is that suppose to solve?

Edit: found some stuff on it

http://www.snopes.com/single-mother-birth-certificate/

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 11:19 pm

Snopes hits me as pretty hilariously naive at times.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:25 am

Oh, the goal is to keep the child off the state's tab. The effect is a child who won't be able to demonstrate citizenship which will affect their ability to drive, vote, or whatever as they get older. It's preemptive disenfranchisement.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:52 am

Someone needs to tell Illinois that T Shirt Hell's "arrest black babies while they're young" shirt is a shitty joke, not a platform, before they try to pass it as a bill...

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Tue Mar 08, 2016 2:52 am

Prak wrote:Someone needs to tell Illinois that T Shirt Hell's "arrest black babies while they're young" shirt is a shitty joke, not a platform, before they try to pass it as a bill...

It has nothing to do with the babies and everything to do with getting money from the fathers.

Basically, if a mother is on welfare, the state can sue the father for child support and keep all the money in order to offset the cost of welfare payments. But they can't do this if they don't know who the father is.

This is why the bill has specific exceptions for women who waive their right to welfare from the state, and allows anyone to claim financial responsibility for the child, not just the biological father.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:32 am

Whipstitch wrote:Snopes hits me as pretty hilariously naive at times.

Pretty much every fact checking outlet (whether serious or humorous, apparently) has this tendency to swing centrist. I can't count the number of times I've watched politifact twist themself into a logic pretzel to give a Democrat a "half true" because they felt like they had to meet their quota.

Snopes wrote:However, that proposal's primary target appeared to be scenarios in which a child's father could be named on a birth certificate (and thus be liable for providing support) but wasn't, placing the fiscal burden of care for a child onto taxpayers.

Okay then, Snopes. Show us where the law covers scenarios in which a child's father cannot be named. Oh, the law doesn't make any exemptions at all? Then why are you talking out of your ass to apologize for a couple of shitbags instead of doing your fucking job and telling people what is and isn't true?

Hyzmarca wrote:It has nothing to do with the babies and everything to do with getting money from the fathers.

It has everything to do with the babies. Here, let me show you what the law looks like if it weren't about the babies:

If neither condition is met, the mother is ineligible for any financial aid provided under the Illinois Public Aid Code for the support of the child. She may obtain a birth certificate for the child by signing a release which states she understands her ineligibility.

Here is what the law actually looks like:

If neither condition is met, a birth certificate shall not be issued for the child and the mother will be ineligible for any financial aid provided under the Illinois Public Aid Code for the support of the child.

Note that both of those prevent the mother from receiving financial aid for the support of the child (which is disgusting), but that the former (my version) allows the mother to obtain a birth certificate at all while the latter (their version) does not. Disenfranchising the children of single mothers is 100% part of the intended goal. We know it's part of the goal, because literally the very next paragraph after the one in which they declare that single mothers who cannot name a father/father-substitute will not receive a birth certificate, they carve out a specific exemption (for women who have been artificially inseminated) allowing them to obtain a birth certificate by waiving their right to financial aid for the child (which they were already ineligible for as per the above paragraph). The only reason to carve out that exemption instead of making it the norm is because fuck single mothers (except the ones who get artificially inseminated, which is expensive, and therefore probably aren't poor black people, and can therefore have their birth certificate).