The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[byu71]

Good catch. I did not remember the date of his marriage. Touche.

On to the topic at hand, what do you believe are his successes as SoS or Senator?

Boy you would make a lousy politician. President Obama and Donald Trump both would have squirmed out of that one.

[Northwestcoug]

The sanctions were strangling them. The lack of hard currency was killing them. There was a lot that we could do short of military intervention. Instead we told them the date at which they can have a nuclear weapon and we gave a government we label a supporter and instigator of terrorism BILLIONS of dollars including pallets full of non-traceable cash in multiple denominations. IOW, we pushed off the real problem for a while by paying for some time, while foregoing alternatives that had been working.

I don't know all the details of the deal. But I'm not so sure the sanctions were 'crippling' them or even working. The cash infusion and time frame may turn out to be a big gamble that doesn't work. But I'm nervous judging the deal based on what admittedly sounds a little suspect on the surface. I don't think Obama, Kerry, or anyone else involved in the deal are ignorant. I would hope there were good reasons bringing Iran to the negotiating table. Hopefully the inspections are effective.

[byu71]

I don't know all the details of the deal. But I'm not so sure the sanctions were 'crippling' them or even working. The cash infusion and time frame may turn out to be a big gamble that doesn't work. But I'm nervous judging the deal based on what admittedly sounds a little suspect on the surface. I don't think Obama, Kerry, or anyone else involved in the deal are ignorant. I would hope there were good reasons bringing Iran to the negotiating table. Hopefully the inspections are effective.

I sure hope they work too. President Obama will have something great in his legacy and we will be a lot safer for it. I don't see why it is ever good to wish the leader of the country or for that matter leaders of the country ill. I truly wished President Obama great success and as corny as it sounds, I always remember him in my prayers. Probably for selfish reasons.

On a side note I found it interesting to see Rubio go after the SOS designee. The media said he didn't look good trying to avoid calling Putin a war criminal. I don't know if I am a dem or not far right republican like myself disqualifying the SOS designee would be good.. If the republican far right gets their way we may end up with former UN who is on Fox all the time. I know the media and dems really don't like him.

[Northwestcoug]

Good catch. I did not remember the date of his marriage. Touche.

On to the topic at hand, what do you believe are his successes as SoS or Senator?

That isn't what I'm arguing. You criticized him with ad hominem attacks. They weren't true.

I'm not going to quickly read his Wikipedia page and shoot off some examples of his service. I'll only say that based on being a multi-term senator, former presidential candidate, and SOS, he has had a pretty successful political career.

[Paperback Writer]

Maybe. From Mass, probably. He wasn't an activist. Where did you get that?

Maybe I used the word and really don't know what it means. His anti war activity I classify as being an activist. I guess I should have googled activist before posting.

[Topper]

That isn't what I'm arguing. You criticized him with ad hominem attacks. They weren't true.

I'm not going to quickly read his Wikipedia page and shoot off some examples of his service. I'll only say that based on being a multi-term senator, former presidential candidate, and SOS, he has had a pretty successful political career.

Do you define success as being re-elected from a state which is aligned with his personal sentiments? If so, then I guess he's been successful. It really depends upon how you define success. Do you consider Rick Perry a successful governor of Texas? He was elected handily but is lightly regarded outside Texas.

[Paperback Writer]

Do you define success as being re-elected from a state which is aligned with his personal sentiments? If so, then I guess he's been successful. It really depends upon how you define success. Do you consider Rick Perry a successful governor of Texas? He was elected handily but is lightly regarded outside Texas.

That is a poor example. Within Texas, Rick Perry is generally considered a success as governor. Those feeling do not translate to national politics or how good a politician Perry would be in Washington DC. Many Texans, including me, have doubts and concerns with Perry beyond Texas. But as a Texas governor, Perry was successful by almost any measure.

[Topper]

That is a poor example. Within Texas, Rick Perry is generally considered a success as governor. Those feeling do not translate to national politics or how good a politician Perry would be in Washington DC. Many Texans, including me, have doubts and concerns with Perry beyond Texas. But as a Texas governor, Perry was successful by almost any measure.

Admittedly, I have only a small sample of voters from Texas. Within my limited sample, most thought he was a dunce. But because he appears to be a dunce to non-Texans, I thought the analogy might make the point, imperfect as it is.

[Paperback Writer]

Admittedly, I have only a small sample of voters from Texas. Within my limited sample, most thought he was a dunce. But because he appears to be a dunce to non-Texans, I thought the analogy might make the point, imperfect as it is.

Being a dunce and an effective governor are not mutually exclusive. I think Rick Perry is a dunce but Texas did will under his governance.

[myboynoah]

And what religion would that be? SATANISM?!?!?!?

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

I guess Chaffetz isn't going to let it go... "The investigation continues."

Embedded Tweet

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPf-rD3F...asoninthehouse

[Uncle Ted]

Michael Moore has a plan... Abolish and replace the democratic party:

Michael Moore: 'We Have to Take Over the Democratic Party'

Activist and filmmaker Michael Moore had a message for the crowd at the Women’s March: “We have to take over the Democratic Party.”


Moore took the stage to outline a plan of action to oppose the Trump administration, starting by urging the crowd to start calling their members of Congress “every single day” and calling upon young people and women to run for elected office themselves.


“The old guard of the Democratic Party has to go,” Moore said. “We need new leadership, we need young leadership, we need women’s leadership.”


Moore argued that public backlash over a move by House Republicans earlier in the month to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics prompted Republicans to quickly backtrack. He suggested that similar activism will get results in the future, though he failed to mention that the backtrack also followed a disapproving tweet from then-president-elect Donald Trump. “I’m telling you these calls work,” he said, “that’s how powerful you are.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs.../514031/14057/

Michael Moore for DNC Chair!

[Uncle Ted]

Obama signed the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act" back in 2012:

H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3. Such a lopsided vote suggests that nobody in Congress is bothered by this, on either side of the aisle. When President Obama signed it on March 8, almost nobody seems to have cared.

Simply put, the way the bill will “improve” public grounds is by moving all those unsightly protesters elsewhere. The law purports to update an old law, Section 1752 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that restricted areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service.
[...]
For one thing, the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_speech_.html

Now the majority of 230 protesters arrested on inauguration day will face 10 years in prison, $25k fine and charged with felony:

Most of the 230 rioters arrested after violent protests erupted in Washington D.C. following Donald Trump's inauguration will be charged with felony rioting, federal prosecutors said on Saturday.
The charge carries a punishment of up to ten years in jail and a $25,000 fine.
Thousand of protesters launched a violent rampage just blocks away from the White House as anti-Trump demonstrators smashed store windows, set fire to cars and threw bricks at police.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-prison.html

Thanks Obama!

[Pelado]

The research-and-analytics firm Echelon Insights released a political break-down of the 207 media markets in the country in last year’s presidential election. The database is filled with fascinating nuggets. Among them: a) The most pro-Trump media market with a football team was Nashville; b) the most pro-Trump media market with a baseball team was Cincinnati; c) the media market with the biggest swing towards Trump was Zanesville, Ohio; d) Cleveland was the major market with the greatest swing towards Trump; e) San Francisco was the only major media market more pro-Hil-lary Clinton than Washington D.C.; and f) the biggest markets swinging away from Trump were Salt Lake City, San Diego, Houston, Austin, Idaho Falls, and Yuma, Arizona.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/64...6E7XFBC11I1KQ7

[Uncle Ted]

The Drumpf campaign may have used freaking robots to win...

Did Donald Trump Use Artificial Intelligence to Win the Election?
The answer might surprise you.

According to Scout.ai, a publication of journalists, professors, and science fiction authors, the answer is a resounding YES.
It is even possible that Donald Trump used data analytics to determine which cities, and states to visit, as well as commanded his own personal botnet army that outnumbered Hillary Clinton’s 5 to 1.

Naturally, I was skeptical of everything this article claims, I even slept on this story before hitting publish. I’ve since looked into their claims and they appear to be telling the truth about the technology and people involved. What is unknown is the extent and success of what Trump and his team accomplished, but given the fact Trump won the election it is entirely possible these technologies could have been a deciding factor. Which means artificial intelligence, machine learning, echo chambers, and weaponized propaganda just influenced the election—not the Russians.

Let me explain.
Steve Bannon is on the board of directors of a privately held company out of London called Cambridge Analytica. They’re a data mining, analytics, and strategic communications company funded by Robert Mercer, a friend and supporter of now President Donald Trump. This company has developed strategic processes and products for automating the ability to track and analyze everyone’s social media presence, and then target and optimize advertising specifically to millions of people using machine learning to show them “news” that matches their political identity. They are then able to use the engagement data to geographically see where Trump could potentially persuade people to vote for him, especially in swing states. Or just poison the well, and persuade people not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

In other words, Steve Bannon and company figured out that social networks such as Twitter and Facebook put everyone into echo chambers, which I wrote about the night of the election, and realized they could use that to their advantage to persuade the masses into voting for Donald Trump. By using machine learning, which enables computers to learn without being programmed, they were able to develop software to analyze everyone’s personalities based on purchased data and Facebook. They then used that analysis to display specifically tailored ads or “news” on Facebook and other websites (sometimes following users across the Internet), showing these users dark posts that only that person saw. By doing this, they could significantly optimize engagement and target people they knew statistically had a high probability of becoming a Trump supporter. They could also target Hillary Clinton supporters, and potentially persuade them not to vote.
[...]

https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/di...f59#.mqnpxccbb

Maybe Hillary should have hired Bannon instead of this dipstick...