User: hsthompson69

She's a he.

On: GamerGate Critic Brianna Wu To Run For Congress (cnn.com)

Only in America can a bright young boy grow up to be an angry, oppressed woman.

Other consequences of change

On: US Scientists Scramble To Protect Research On Climate Change (cnn.com)

Climate change can also reduce sunburn and skin cancer, and drownings, and freezings, and blunt force trauma, and starvation, and any other number of health benefits.

Not all change has negative consequences.

A massively different tune...

On: US Scientists Scramble To Protect Research On Climate Change (cnn.com)

...than the "good old days". In the words of head CRU scientist Phil Jones:

I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed to pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it
-Phil Jones email Feb. 21, 2005

Maybe make all the data and code open source, for anyone to peruse, and you won't have to worry about it being "saved".

Of course, if you make it too open, maybe someone will find something wrong with your grid cell adjustments...

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

Two things:

1) I don't believe you are the same guy who started this conversation. They were much more interesting :)

2) I don't believe that you didn't read my posts. It's fairly obvious you read them but cannot find any rational argument against them :)

But hey, keep autoreplying without reading! :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

The not-reader strikes again! :) Or does he? I can't tell, I didn't read your post :)

Suffice it to say, the answer to your question is in a part you didn't read :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

Quick! Don't read this!

Close your eyes! It'll keep the bad bad ideas out!

Or, go ahead, read this, and make some demands about how you won't read this until someone gives you a candy bar :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

Funny, exactly how did you determine that the post didn't answer your question, without reading it?

ESP perhaps? :)

Keep your eyes closed, and stop reading, right now!

Because here's a secret. It's a super secret. And you should have your eyes closed now so you don't read it.

Okay, last spoiler alert!

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

You've missed much more than my explanation on your poorly expressed SJW rant :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

You're very good at not reading. My bet is that has something to do with your confusion :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly - I gave you an exact answer on why you expressed yourself poorly.

But let's try again, since if it's possible for me to misunderstand you, it's possible for you to misunderstand me:

Your statement poorly expressed because it was ambiguous. There were three possible interpretations of your statement. I'll lay them out for you again:

1) I'm supposed to read your statement as sarcasm, since everyone knows that the actual modus operandi of SJWs is their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't;

2) I am supposed to read your statement as a "a pox on both their houses", where you find both the right-wing and SJWs morally equivalent.

3) I am supposed to read your statement as "I won't give the right-wing the benefit of the doubt, but I'll give SJWs the benefit of the doubt".

I interpreted it as #3.

Would you like to pick which interpretation you intended from my list of 3, or would you like to offer a fourth option I haven't covered?

Or, would you like to skip reading this post, and restate an ultimatum that has already been addressed? :)

Please, feel free, re-quote yourself. With bold letters, maybe :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

You expressed yourself poorly, and I could care less if you'd like to read my post or not :)

If you'd like to make yourself more clear, please choose, explicitly, one of the following options:

1) I'm supposed to read your statement as sarcasm, since everyone knows that the actual modus operandi of SJWs is their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't;

2) I am supposed to read your statement as a "a pox on both their houses", where you find both the right-wing and SJWs morally equivalent.

3) I am supposed to read your statement as "I won't give the right-wing the benefit of the doubt, but I'll give SJWs the benefit of the doubt".

Or, if you'd like, add an explicit fourth option that materially responds to the original critique I had of you, when I assumed you meant #3.

There's always an option :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

Okay, so three options:

1) I'm supposed to read your statement as sarcasm, since everyone knows that the actual modus operandi of SJWs is their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't?

2) Or, am I supposed to read your statement as a "a pox on both their houses", where you find both the right-wing and SJWs morally equivalent?

3) Or, am I supposed to read your statement as "I won't give the right-wing the benefit of the doubt, but I'll give SJWs the benefit of the doubt"?

I tended to imagine the third one as your intent - perhaps you were just unable to express yourself clearly. Oh, and apology accepted in advance :)

Honestly, I found it funny that you objected to the use of SJW as some sort of epithet - it seemed like an awfully SJW-esque sensitivity, contradicted by your non-SJW-esque willingness to continue a conversation with someone you disagree with :)

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

It's part of their methodology, and based on their desire not to control others, feeding into a need to appear as if they aren't.

You don't see the irony there? You literally ascribe to the right-wing the actual modus operandi of SJWs.

Would you want me to explain how the Electoral college COULD serve to effect the role you want it to?

The 2016 presidential election. Q.E.D.

Candyland is not a game of skill, at all., and if you claim by winning it, that you did demonstrate some personal capacity, then you are simply mistaken. Capriciousness and intent are contrary operators.

Candyland is not a game of skill. I can still have the intent to shame you by beating you at candyland. I may not have proven any skill on my part, but even in a game of chance I can have an *intention*.

In the game of a presidential election, you have winners, and losers. You cannot assert that neither of these groups had any intents during the election.

Trump, did not spectacularly collapse, and that was enough that a victory was possible.

And with Rs nominally in charge of the House, Senate and the White House, the end effect is in fact, an uprising, a groundswell, and a landslide. There may in fact, only be a plurality of voters that supported Trump, and even a lesser plurality of those that supported Hillary, but to deny that capricious election didn't end in a landslide of losses for the Ds is just ignoring the plain truth.

Will you repudiate it, and endorse that there was no landslide in his favor?

First off, I don't repudiate trolling. It's humor, and I appreciate it. Seeing SJWs melt down after this election has been particularly tasty :)

Two, you've fallen victim again to the "landslide in popular vote" to "landslide in effective balance of power". Which, from the expectations of the Ds all the way up till 9pm November 8th, was that the Rs would spectacularly implode. Simply in relation to expectations, it was a landslide.

As a net result, they really didn't reject Clinton, though. If they had, Trump would be up in the popular vote

Enough of them really did reject Clinton, after voting for Obama twice. If they didn't reject Clinton, Trump would've have won the rust belt.

Trump didn't gain significantly on Bush in 2004

By my frame, where this was a minority revolt against majority oppression, by *definition* he wouldn't have gained significantly on Bush in 2004. You keep making my point for me.

Well, your difficulty with taking it seriously does make it more likely to be a problem. The slow knife pierces the shield.

Well, I suppose if one could agree that precinct whatever is something we should pay attention to, even if there's not a whole lot of evidence it has a demonstrable effect, we can also agree that voter ID is something we should pay attention to, even if the lack of it doesn't seem to have a lot of evidence of a demonstrable effect either.

Surprise me and agree that free and fair elections means acknowledging the concerns of both sides :)

I say we do. Why? Because voting is going to force a government on them anyway. No sense ninny-prancing around over it.

And I simply have greater regard for personal freedom than you do. We start from different values and premises, and come to different conclusions.

Glad you know what it is though, now you should endorse it.

Good, your phrasing was confusing, it almost sounded like you had a problem with the idea of its implementation.

I might go a step further, and allocate states by population as well :) That'll fix your senate problem

Re:The US is not a democracy

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

If your definition of a "good" muslim, is one who is devout, and dedicated to the quran, and dedicated to sharia law, then your friend was a bad muslim. This is the general definition imams and islamic countries go by.

If your definition of a "good" muslim, is one who is not dedicated to the quran, repudiates and disavows sharia law, then your friend was a good muslim. This is the general definition the western world should go by.

Go ahead, pick your definition, and if you are brave enough, ask them if they support or disavow sharia law.

And for your christian friends, ask them if they support or disavow the death penalty for witches. Same principles apply.

Re:The US is not a democracy

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

And I'm sure you'd feel the same way if small states were black and hispanic majority and it was your "team" that lost elections about it.

Racial composition of states don't matter to me - we're all human. Everything else is just an arbitrary way to divide us into various victimhood cults.

Just like I'm sure you think every voter needs to show ID, to combat the virtually non-existent problem of voter fraud.

If you care about the security of elections, and want to make sure the Russians aren't hiring bunches of illegal immigrants to vote their candidate in, wouldn't you want voter ID?

If we were going to make sure the system wasn't compromised by foreign elements:

1) secure voter id
2) all paper voting, even with electronic voting (print out a auditable copy after the touch screen portion is done, allow the voter to double check it, then keep that paper copy as the paper trail)
3) no electronic voting machines connected to a network, or with any accessible ports/wifi/etc

you can confuse the debate by talking about a different concept that happens to share the same word.

I hope the clarification that we're talking about the minority opinion on any given issue placed before a democracy helps you understand better.

After all, using "minority" is truly a useless word when it comes to the fake idea of race. If I'm the only Chinese guy in a room, am I a "minority"? If that room is in a Chinese majority chinatown, and I no longer a minority? If that Chinatown is in a white majority county, and I a minority again? And if my country happens to be in a world where it's majority Chinese, do I lose my minority status?

Do your Christian friends disavow biblical law? Do you tell them to fuck off if they don't?

Yes, they do. Most of the time, I just need to demonstrate the craziness of Lot and his Daughters.

I don't put up with people who run countries around the world where it is legal to subjugate women, and kill gays. Find me a christian country that does it, like the dozen or so Islamic ones that do, and I'll disavow them as well.

Somehow I'm doubtful your "Muslim friends" know your real views.

I'm quite clear with them, and they're quite clear with me. Some of them are muslim in the same sense that reform jews who don't go to synagogue but will still have a sader are jewish, that is to say, praying five times daily is a cultural tradition. Some of them are muslim in a more devout sense, but have embraced the need for reform of islamic law, and actively oppose imams who preach strict adherence to the quran.

Anyone who proposes sharia, or imposes sharia, can stay the fuck out of my country.

The most devout guy I knew was best friends with a lesbian. News flash, a lot of people don't actually follow their holy books.

Then he was a good man, but a bad muslim. I'm okay with that.

But to say the that anyone who considers themselves a devout Muslim is somehow a terrorist sympathizer looking to subjugate non-Muslims is ignorant and bigoted.

If by "devout" you mean that sharia law should be imposed upon this earth through a Caliphate, then you're a terrorist sympathizer. If you don't understand that, if you haven't read the quran, and the strict laws it makes explicit, then you're far more ignorant that I ever could be.

Now, if by "devout" you mean, fast during Ramadan, pray five times a day, but you're at least okay with people drawing mohammed, if not doodling him yourself in your spare time, that's something different.

Let's be clear - most muslims are *victims* of Islam, which is in dire need of a reform movement. Any muslim who works towards the reform of the barbaric and evil sharia law is a friend of mine. Any muslim who works towards the imposition of the barbaric and evil sharia law is my enemy. It's really that simple.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

I'm sticking to my observation as to the right's usage of that label as a method of control.

And if it hasn't been clear, I find your observation delightfully hypocritical, given that SJWs are in fact, people trying to control others.

By sheer chance of the capaciousness of the electoral college, and a mere 80,000 votes. Which is why the electoral college, despite many people's beliefs, does not effectively serve to protect the minority.

I wonder what you mean by "effectively". In this case it was prima facie effective. Perhaps your contention is that it did not offer the same protection as should have occurred in 2012, when the minority had been oppressed for only 4 years instead of 8, but I'll simply note that perhaps it took 8 years of oppression, and a little bit of luck, to set the stage for the massive directional repudiation of the status quo.

To put it another way, Candyland isn't a game of skill.

Whether or not candyland is a game of skill, if someone wants to beat you in it to make you cry, that intent isn't changed by the nature of the game. Capriciousness and intent are not mutually exclusive.

yes, I could believe it, if you told me you did the polling and found that number of people who decided on a whim.

A sudden change of mind (a "whim") is not an accident.

you were remiss in not making yourself clear enough.

A fair cop. I humbly apologize for not making myself clear enough.

As for Daddy Trump's trolling, I recognize it for what it is :)

And that isn't even considering Obama's re-election. The American people? Didn't reject him.

I chalk that up to white guilt, really. And perhaps a smidge of the MSM covering up things like Benghazi, or torpedoing poor Mitt in the debates. Now Mitt, he would've made a great president.

I know it's not a rational or consistent position, but I think most Americans like Obama, even if they don't like what he's done. Rejecting Clinton after voting for Obama twice was really just circling the square for them.

I'll take pardons and restoring voting rights, over taking away votes any day of the week.

I'd be fine with that for non-violent felonies. Like maybe poor old Dinesh :)

A rainstorm could have had enough effect to influence it. That's chance too, and yes, it does influence voters.

And this is true in any close race. Asserting that chance repudiates the intentional (rather than accidental) choices of the minority [of a nation] which throws of the shackles of the majority [of a nation] is a unjustified dismissal of agency.

Precinct manipulation refers to the variety of electoral strategies by which individual voting sites can be compromised to retard votes.

You mean, like putting a station on the top of a fifth floor walkup to deter the disabled from participating? I can imagine some of that happening along the edges, but it's hard to take something that subtle seriously.

They are still allowed to make their own stupid decisions, I'm just forcing them to make it clear what they did decide.

No. Just, no. You don't get to force that. You've got no right to their unexpressed opinions. It'd be like me forcing you to make clear what your sexual preferences are in gruesome detail - it's frankly, none of your business, even if it offends you that someone would hide those details.

Again, your resistance and rejection to his response is simply validating my position

I said he never showed remorse or contrition. You cited two speeches he gave when he lost, where he never showed any remorse or contrition. Your

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

they mock people as SJW in order to establish control over them.

So, which came first, the SJW mocking someone as a racist, misogynist, islamophobe and homophobe, or the mocked people mocking SJWs?

Go ahead, take your time with that :)

And the minority [of the nation] in those small, swing states, which would otherwise be voiceless in a competition with high population states, stood against the status quo.

Perhaps the qualifier of [of the nation] helps frame it for you? The fact is there were two "minorities" in this race (since neither candidate got a majority), but for sake of argument this time, let's pretend in fact, 51% of people [in the nation] voted for Hillary, yet she lost the electoral college vote - in this case, the 49% minority [in the nation] was able to stand against the status quo (which, I'm sure you'll agree, was represented by Hillary).

Yes, capriciousness carried the day, not intent.

You say that as if you can't have both. The luck of the draw does not devalue the intent of the winners.

Trump? Ultimately, he treaded water in the general electorate and won by chance.

Sure, that's all he had to do. Keep his head above water during the massive attacks of the MSM, and find a lucky inside straight along the rust belt. That doesn't mean that the people who voted for him didn't do so intentionally.

Do you believe that some people voted for him by *accident*, and that's why he's in? Really? :)

Nope, I'm taking the popular vote count as a showing that the math doesn't work to validate your claim regarding a massive repudiation.

I'm using the term "massive" as in "massive change of direction". You're using the term "massive" as in "massive number of voters (relatively)".

tl;dr - Obama didn't just make mistakes that required course correction, he fundamentally went in the completely opposite direction desired by the minority [of the nation] he oppressed.

others were unable to vote due to the machinations of others. Some forthright, if questionable, like felon restrictions, others less so, like precinct manipulation.

Heh. Felons. Like Hillary winning Virginia by the # of felons given the right to vote by her co-conspirators :)

Not sure how precinct manipulation makes your point though - a vote may be devalued, say, by packing democrats into ultra blue states, but that doesn't stop them from voting.

I prefer to make the action explicit and express though. I can live with "I don't care" being on the ballot, if you wish, but not participating? No thanks.

I can understand the impulse to make voting mandatory, but I can't justify violating someone's right not to participate that way. We need to allow people to make their own stupid decisions.

Except all of that was the remorse and contrition, you're just arguing that they didn't believe him, and saying you didn't believe him.

No. Neither of the speeches you cited included the word "sorry" or "I apologize" or any variation thereof. In order to be remorseful and contrite, you must first admit to *error* - please, find any phrase or clause in Obama's speeches that show any such admission on his part towards his treatment of Republicans.

A technical loss like "The votes here, they count for X in the electoral college" while "All these votes here? They only count for .%X" because you see, the electoral college is the system that turns a straight-forward election into the arcane and technical one.

The ground-rule double is also quite arcane and obscure. Play the game according to the rules as they are, rather than hoping to win on the basis of th

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

No. I said used. As in it is used by the right-wing as a term of disparagement, in order to enact control.

I mock SJWs in order to repudiate their intended control of me. Again, you've got this hall of mirrors going on, blaming the victim :)

"And the minority in those small, swing states" which according to my reading, would be the ones who didn't vote for Trump, assuming you are contending Trump won a majority in those states.

Yes, I thought that changing of frame on you part particularly clever, since we can draw an arbitrary boundary on any given set of voters to create both Trump majorities, and Trump minorities. When I spoke of minorities, I meant on the national level, and you simply changed the frame. Clever :)

we, as in the American People, made no concerted or deliberate effort at all.

We, the oppressed minority, did make a concerted and deliberate effort. And thanks to the electoral college "capriciousness", and perhaps even the random chance of who showed up to the polls, had our voice heard, and won.

Simply because a number of dice had to fall in a certain order for this particular result to happen, doesn't change the message that was being sent by the oppressed minority. Yes, luck had at least something to do with it, but the fact that Trump's message could resonate enough for him to even win the Republican primary was a deep, meaty message.

Your argument was that it was a massive repudiation of Obama, and that is what is silly, since Trump, as I indicated, got pretty much the same level of support of Bush in 2004.

You're mistaking the popular vote count for a coherent and visible message from the supporters of the victor. The two are different.

By thinking about it, I get the idea that you think a breeze that happened to blow a poorly constructed shed down is the same as a hurricane.

Well, far be it from me to argue that the Democrat party and the tyranny of the majority is anything but a poorly constructed shed :) If, by your measure, Obama's legacy was so fragile that a mere errant breeze might bring it crashing down, I suppose I can see your point...but that seems to be selling Obama short :)

You're presuming that those who didn't vote chose not to vote of their own free will, and that their actually wish was allowing their peers to make the final call.

With power comes responsibility. If you don't vote, you have made a choice. You may regret it later, but your choice was the implementation of at least one of your wishes, even if you come to regret it.

You may have forgotten, but we're discussing the showing of remorse and contrition, that you said he didn't do. He did. I already said it didn't work.

None of that was remorse or contrition, it was a hope that they wouldn't treat him the way he treated them. He fucked up his first impression, and it bit him in the ass. When he lost, he admitted the loss, and then pleaded for them to treat him well, but never apologized for his crass remarks about elections having consequences, and how he "won".

Perhaps your idea of remorse and contrition differs from mine?

Of course, she only got a technical loss, due to the nature of the electoral college

Ah, much like the technical loss of the Cubs who had fewer runs over the course of the series, or the technical loss of any football team that gains more yardage, but makes fewer touchdowns :)

Yeah, keep holding on to those technicalities :)

To fight for something, you need to fight against something.

Semantics here, but realize you can fight against caddish behav

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

Actually, the "SJW" epithet is an example of trying to use control by the right-wing

Funny that you think that. SJW has been a term of self-identification by the hardcore alt-left for years now - although if you have any sort of citation to show its origin in the conservative press, I'd be happy to look at it.

The minority in those swing states, would be the ones who didn't vote for Trump, which means they would stand for the status quo, assuming you take electing a president who intended to stay the course, as the status quo

Oh, that's funny! So, I can use "minority" to define the small states and rural areas that went for Trump on a national scale, and then you can use the term "minority" for the folks in the national "majority", but in a local "minority" :)

It's like a hall of mirrors with you!

Namely you contended this was some major change, when it wasn't. That it was a massive repudiation, that it was revealing something.

It was a massive repudiation, on its face. We've literally elected a president that is going to undo a massive amount of government expansion executed over the past 8 years. You can argue that 55 million is less massive than 57 million, perhaps, but to call this anything but a repudiation of the tyranny of the majority is silly.

The fact that this massive repudiation could happen *by chance* doesn't make it any less massive. E.g., even if any given hurricane as caused by chance (some butterfly flapping its wings), doesn't make the hurricane less massive. Ponder on that for a bit.

Anyway, a substantial lack of turnout? This inherently destroys confidence in the reflection of the vote to the wishes of the electorate.

No. People who make the choice not to vote have that right, and it accurately reflects their wishes when they allow their voting peers to make the final call.

Obama didn't lose voters to Trump, you may want to rephrase that. Obama wasn't running.

Obama campaigned for Hillary. People that voted for him, chose to repudiate his endorsement of Clinton. He lost those voters.

They've been playing the "Shame on you for pulling the Race Card" Card for quite a while. It's very popular.

Blame the victim much? :) That's the "Stop shaming me with your race card and make a real argument" card :)

It's popular because it cuts to the quick - the shame tactics of the left have an effective range of 0m.

Oh my. Wait a second. That's 2008. Then what happened? You forget his post-2010 [nytimes.com], or 2014 [washingtonpost.com] speeches?

Oh, you mean when he *lost* elections, and then expected his opponents to treat him better than he did in 2008? :)

You only get one chance to make a first impression :)

I'll say it's difficult because they're reasonable and considerate, rather than just going off on whatever fanatic zealotry will get the yelling started.

Did we have left wing riots after the election, or right wing ones? Just sayin' :)

.anything but bringing up the true cause, which is an actually legitimate grievance.

BLM thinks the true cause is some massive, systemic racism by white cops (even when black cops shoot them).

In fact, the true cause is a thug culture that poisons the well for those people who *aren't* thugs, but happen to share some phenotypic attributes with them. You could also point to the cause a over-militarized police force, and limits placed on self-defense by law abiding civilians.

So, no, they don't have a legitimate grievance, they have a contrived one, which, moreover, is actively detrimental for dealing

Re:The US is not a democracy

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

That's a pretty odd definition for "minority", you're not even properly selecting for rural vs urban, you're just giving a disproportionate of power to people who happen to live in small states.

Well, in my definition, it encompasses the rural versus urban, as well as the small state vs. large state.

tl;dr - you can't ignore the interests of minority rural areas, and you can't ignore the interests of minority small states.

We traditionally define minority in terms of race, religion, or sexuality, precisely because those groups are typically discriminated against.

Hrm. Let's shelve that dubious tradition for a moment, and focus on what minority means in the sense of a democratic government where each proposition that passes has a majority (or plurality) support, and a minority that opposes it. As in "majority leader" and "minority leader" of the House or Senate.

I hope they do, but I have little faith considering how awful a job they did during the election.

I agree. Wikileaks showed them as effectively campaign staff for Clinton.

I know Muslims you racist piece of shit, they are some of my best friends and some of the absolutely nicest and most peaceful people I know.

I call bullshit. If you know muslims, you know they're not a race, they're a religion. I know muslims from pakistan, the philippines, and the middle east (both shia and sunni). You know precious little about your best friends if you think muslims are a "race".

Secondly, if your muslim friends don't disavow sharia law (which, my muslim friends do, because they're not terrorist sympathizers, and understand how muslims across the globe are regularly oppressed by islam and islamic law), then frankly, FUCK THEM. If your holy book insists that you create earthly governments that subjugate women, or kill gays, you can kindly do that barbaric shit somewhere else.

You should walk up to some of the Muslims I know, good people who helped me get through tough times, people with whom I talked about religion, people I went to parties with, played sports with, guys with whom I talked about girls, people who moved to your country and I dearly miss.

Ask them if they support sharia law.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should apply to non muslims.

Ask them if they believe sharia law should override the constitution.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

If they really are good people, the aren't "good" muslims.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

In general, most people actually do empathize with not coercing others.

Agreed. But this isn't true of most SJWs or liberals :)

At last examination, 80,000 votes was the balance in 3 states.

And the minority in those small, swing states, which would otherwise be voiceless in a competition with high population states, stood against the status quo.

I am saying no such thing occurred, that it was an election result of chance,

Isn't that true of any close election? Isn't it just chance on who shows up, and who stays home, especially in a close race? Maybe someone had a flat tire? Maybe someone happened to get laid off so they had a day to go vote - asserting that close elections are *anything* but chance seems silly.

There was no massive swing of people who voted for Trump

Sure there was, on the precinct level. That's a small minority of the population, agreed, sitting in some swing state, but that was what made the difference, by chance or not :)

Even if I accepted that there were lots of switched, the net gain? Almost nothing over Bush in 2004. Behind Hillary, behind Obama in 2012, WAY BEHIND Obama in 2008.

You're using the frame of popular vote. That's an improper frame when addressing a minority revolt against an oppressive government supported by large population liberal states.

And nope, plenty of people read that health care bill.

Well, bits and pieces. You couldn't find a single legislator that read the whole thing. Probably couldn't find one today either :)

there's a lot more people who didn't vote anyway. It's more than 40%. That's a problem in itself.

Your assumption that this non-voting 40% isn't generally represented by the 60% that do vote is simply that, an assumption. Accept for a moment that the electorate is generally representative of the total population. Now, is it important for you to reach out to the voters Obama lost to Trump?

Nope. Shame works very well. It even works on the innocent.

No. Calling me a xenophobe, or a racist, or a homophobe, because I don't agree with your policy positions doesn't make you more persuasive - in fact, it drives me to vote for Trump simply to upset you :)

It's the subtle, sly underhanded dealings that I worry about.

You mean like replacing the travel staff of the whitehouse, or renting the lincoln bedroom, or selling access to the Secretary of State?

You and I share the same worry, we just evaluated the risks differently :)

Obama did that.[showed contrition, remorse, and reached out to wobblers] It didn't work.

Pics or it didn't happen :) Obama alienated everyone on the Hill claiming "he won" and "elections have consequences. To this day, he has never blamed himself for his failures, always finding some other scapegoat.

And the way to get them out to vote? It's not your mealy wishy-washy solution, it's giving them a fighting cause. Energy and gumption, not malaise.

Funny, when you say "energy and gumption", i think Trump, and when you say "malaise", I think Clinton (and her predecessor Carter). :)

As for a fighting cause, I think the liberals can't find a *single* one that will unify their base - they have too many special interests, and too much invested in identity politics. A white person supporting "Black Lives Matters" must feel at least some cognitive dissonance, if only shame for their skin color. Anyone can say "Make America Great Again", since it's inclusive.

In fact, Hillary's "Stronge

Re:The US is not a democracy

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

how is the EC a check and balance that protects minorities?

It protects the minority of people who live in small states from the majority who life in large states.

I think you're conflating "minority" with some specific racial term, rather than a generic term for any less than 50% of the population that believes in a given policy.

The GOP controls all three branches of government and it's dubious that they'll start standing up to their own president.

I have faith that this will encourage the 4th estate to start doing its job :)

That all being said, the GOP controls the House, the Senate, and will soon be about even in the SCOTUS, but Trump destroyed the GOP before he destroyed the Democrat party :)

when you say you're going to deport millions of Mexicans people are going to start looking at any Hispanic person as an illegal immigrant who should be deported.

If you've got papers, no problem :) Frankly, the best way to do this would be to make severe penalties for employing illegal immigrants.

And yet they're targeting Muslims as a whole

Muslims are targeting Americans as a whole. Any muslim (who, in fact, are victims of islam), who can disavow sharia law, is completely fine. The ones that think you should be killed for drawing mohammed, or being gay - I'm sorry, but yes, we're targeting you.

Re:The US is not a democracy

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

your understanding is inconsistent with modern Democracies which include numerous checks and balances and protections of minorities.

One of these checks and balances is called the Electoral College :)

All the foreign leaders Trump praises are authoritarians who Trump praises specifically for their authoritarian actions.

Why would you expect him to reverse the expansion of executive power?

It's the nature of the beast. That is to say, it is easy for him to undo executive actions - nobody can tell him, "Obama had the power to make executive orders about immigration policy, and you can't!" However, it will be hard for him to create *new* executive actions, since everyone can tell him "Obama shouldn't have had this power, so you shouldn't either." The restraint imposed upon an executive makes it hard for them to expand executive power, and easy to reduce executive power, and it is in his (and arguably our own) interests to reduce many of the executive fiats Obama pushed.

As did Liberals during Bush, Conservatives during Obama, and it would have been Conservatives again under Clinton.

The problem is, Bush, Obama, and Clinton were all on the same team :) Trump destroyed both the Republican and Democrat party this year :)

They weren't saying leave the Muslims or Mexicans alone,

1) there's a difference between legal and illegal Mexicans (or hispanics), and illegals don't have any right to be left alone;

2) they want muslim terrorists and their sympathizers to leave *everyone* alone.

Re: Obama has no right to do this

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

Check out the past polling, people didn't like the idea of a president not winning the popular vote.

And the majority doesn't like the idea of being unable to impose their will upon the minority :) Forgive me if I'm reluctant to give much attention to polls if I understand the useful nature of checks and balances :)

This was no minority revolt, it was a technical victory of a small margin.

We're saying the same thing. The technical victory was of a minority that was given that power through the systems of checks and balances we have, namely, the electoral college. The swing of the particular precincts that voted for Obama previously and voted for Trump this time was no small revolution for the people making that switch - it was a massive repudiation of their prior support of "hope and change".

, and the minority set about the last 8 years bickering and bitching, obstructing all improvement,

Well, it's the job of the minority to bicker and bitch, the problem is they weren't very good at obstructing the high-impact low-number of executive actions, or the large scale interventions into the economy through an unread health care bill :)

They can't be reached out to at all, they went for the most pompous, bombastic, and asinine candidate possible,

And this attitude will mean the pompous, bombastic, asinine character will rule for 8 years instead of four :)

When you call people xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, and deplorable, you're not going to get their vote :) Shame has a effective range of 0m :)

people aren't convinced that Trump, or the Republicans, will act reasonably, or responsibly,

The real problem, from the left hand point of view, is that their extremist rhetoric on this point sets the bar so low, Trump just needs to step over it. If you're convinced that Trump is going to setup muslim internment camps, round up the gays and send them to gas chambers, and create rape palaces for him and his other white male cis-gendered friends, you're going to look stupid when all he does is overturn Roe v. Wade.

tl;dr - from a purely tactical point of view, liberals need to be showing contrition, remorse, and reaching out to the wobblers they lost. They don't even have to be *sincere* about it, but until they can recover the folks who made the Obama-Trump switch, they're going to lose.

Re:The US is not a democracy

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

And what does an EC do to stop the winners from enslaving the losers anyway?

It's called checks and balances. The liberal majority for the past 8 years has foisted upon the minority a massive expansion of executive power (and government power in general), and the minority has bitten back. The good news is that this expansion of executive power can be undone with the stroke of a Trumpian presidential pen - the better news is that you'll see liberals embrace the idea of putting limits on new Trumpian executive action, and thereby protecting the rights of both the majority and the minority.

tl;dr - leave us alone. That's really what the victorious minority in this election cycle was saying. Once the chastened majority realizes this, and takes it to heart, they'll start winning elections again.

The US is not a democracy

On: President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)

We're a federal republic.

The fact that outraged citizens who have had their popular vote winner lose an electoral college contest is a tribute to the lack of education these people have.

Again, we're not a democracy, we're a federal republic.

If this surprises you, or outrages you, you didn't pay attention in civics class. Furthermore, if you can't understand the very *intentional* reasons behind avoiding a pure democracy (such as 51% of the population deciding democratically to enslave the remaining 49%), then you lack sufficient imagination and intelligence to be worth listening to on the matter.

tl;dr - there was a good reason for instituting the EC in the first place, and those reasons haven't changed.