The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[Tellenbach]

Also, she was enmeshed deeply in the web of "cancel" social media, which admittedly is extremely toxic.

I had no idea that knitters were under siege from SJWs.

While I think Trump has a lot more energy on his side, it's also true that many apathetic people will still vote. The five or six swing states are key. In California, the Dems employed the technique of ballot harvesting to take over several Congressional districts. They would collect votes after the election until they won; California law allows this; we have a supermajority of lawless Dems in charge. I hope Trump's people are aware of this practice.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I had no idea that knitters were under siege from SJWs.

I vaguely knew of a knitting subculture, and vaguely was aware that there was a political aspect.

The five or six swing states are key

I think the key here is really the states that Trump picked up that have voted for Democrats since 1992. This is what I'll be watching here, and the nominee would be very smart to focus a lot of attention on these states, unlike a past nominee who shall remain nameless. I don't think those states are places that can really be easily written off as "Trump country"; they don't have that much in common culturally with places like the Deep South.

But I'm sounding like a broken record here.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think the key here is really the states that Trump picked up that have voted for Democrats since 1992. This is what I'll be watching here, and the nominee would be very smart to focus a lot of attention on these states, unlike a past nominee who shall remain nameless. I don't think those states are places that can really be easily written off as "Trump country"; they don't have that much in common culturally with places like the Deep South.

But I'm sounding like a broken record here.

If did the math right Dems only need to take back Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and hold what they have to win. While in 2016 all 3 were won with something like 1% margin.
Plus if Dems take Florida or some random state that makes it even more easy in the rust belt. Florida is like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania combined.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If did the math right Dems only need to take back Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and hold what they have to win. While in 2016 all 3 were won with something like 1% margin.
Plus if Dems take Florida or some random state that makes it even more easy in the rust belt. Florida is like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania combined.

No, that's what I got from 270towin as well. I think there's a good chance of winning Ohio if those other three states are won. The trick, then, is picking a candidate who well do well in those states. I don't think Bloomberg is one of them.

The Democratic candidate doesn't need Georgia or North Carolina or anything like that.

 

[Virtual ghost]

No, that's what I got from 270towin as well. I think there's a good chance of winning Ohio if those other three states are won. The trick, then, is picking a candidate who well do well in those states. I don't think Bloomberg is one of them.

The Democratic candidate doesn't need Georgia or North Carolina or anything like that.

I am not sure, Ohio is more red than those 3. The whole working class thing might just work but most other candidates probably can't count on Ohio.
While Florida is basically 50:50 as always and Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia could perhaps be vulnerable.


However taking Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and holding what you have should be enough. (extra caution should be made in New Hampshire, Maine and Nevada)

 

[Coriolis]

I want a system the helps people, but also isn't abuseable by those who attempt to game the system. Which is hard to achieve regardless.

The only way to prevent anyone from ever gaming the system is not to have a system. It's a corollary to saying the only way to guarantee not failing is not to try. I prefer not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good this way. As someone else already said, I can tolerate a little money going to those few undeserving cheats if it makes it possible to help a much larger number of people who would not be able to better themselves or even to survive without it.

 

[Totenkindly]

The only way to prevent anyone from ever gaming the system is not to have a system. It's a corollary to saying the only way to guarantee not failing is not to try. I prefer not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good this way. As someone else already said, I can tolerate a little money going to those few undeserving cheats if it makes it possible to help a much larger number of people who would not be able to better themselves or even to survive without it.

I have a similar big picture perspective.

As part of my job, we run queries on this stuff. The actual potential fraud percentage of authenticated electronic claims (as one example) is very very low, so you are potentially providing valid benefits to a minimum of 98-99 filings out of 100, and the remainder which are flagged need to be investigated through an established process to make sure they are not fraudulent. There are just so many claims submitted that the number can sound high but not when compared to the actual total claims submitted.

You will never have a perfect system, and our system helps a huge amount of applicants, regardless of those who try to abuse the system, and it is definitely worth helping so many even if there is an expected amount of "bleed" because the positives greatly outweigh the negatives. People who work in field offices who can see non-electronic applicants face to face and are well acquainted with their casework tell me in general these are people who can't survive month to month without their benefit payment. So I am coming at this from a systems perspective (where no system is perfect, you just try to get it as close as possible) and from people who actually interact with beneficiaries.

But for whatever reason, the general public simply hears about the big fraud case here and there, or fosters an attitude of how everyone abuses the system; generally people like to complain / be outraged over violations than notice the positive, we tend to see the negative first. I had a kid trying to get on disability (for a chronic genetic condition), they're STILL waiting even with an onset / initial filing date; and I've know people who need disability who have been rejected repeatedly; when the process is running as planned, it is difficult to get on disability. Eh.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Assange lawyer: Trump offered pardon in exchange for saying Russia didn't hack DNC

 

[Nicodemus]

Assange lawyer: Trump offered pardon in exchange for saying Russia didn't hack DNC

How fitting:

An attorney for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange alleged in court Wednesday that President Trump offered a pardon to Julian Assange if he would deny any Russian involvement in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack in 2016.

Edward Fitzgerald, Assange's lawyer, said in a London court that Trump's message had been passed on to Assange by former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.).

"There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump," McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5f6f8a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html

 

[Z Buck McFate]

And it doesn't even matter^. His base seems to get their information directly from Trump's Twitter feed, and the assumption seems to be that if Big Bad Media reports something it's safe to assume it's a lie. Multiple intelligence agencies reported that Russia is still very actively interfering in the 2020 election process and Trump says it's another "Democratic hoax". Launched by multiple intelligence agencies. They believe the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf over multiple intelligence agencies.....and the left are the ones who are brainwashed. Whatever.

I do think the difference between 45's and Bernie's reaction to hearing Russia is interfering on their behalf was telling: Bernie immediately condemned Russia for it and called Putin something like "autocratic thug", whereas Trump (1) got furious that the director intelligence agencies let Schiff know (even though it would be wildly inappropriate and corrupt not to); (2) fired the director and replaced him with someone who will do the wildly corrupt thing for him and hide fucked up information that he wants to stay hidden; (3) publicly denied it was happening and claimed it was all "another" "Democratic Hoax".

There's no fucking way any Republican would be okay with an inverse experience of that^, and the overall lack of theory of mind in those on the right to recognize it - let alone acknowledge it - has been stunning and thoroughly disheartening.

 

[Virtual ghost]

All US troops to withdraw from Afghanistan under peace deal


It seems that saga is finally coming to an end.
Although since Afghanistan has China at it's east, Iran at it's west, Pakistan at south and Ex-USSR at north, the country will probably be pretty quickly sucked into the loose pact between those countries. Especially since many diplomatic channels are already open.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Everyone knows the Taliban tried to surrender like right after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and the US refused, right?

Either way, I don't believe a syllable coming from anyone in this administration, especially that fuck Pompeo.

The fact that this is still fully active story almost 20 years later in a way says that USA lost this war. Since it simply didn't manage to achieve what it wanted.
However there are more important hot spots out there. At this point Afghanistan is simply too deep into hostile sphere of influence that you can do anything there without huge amount of resources and energy. Which are much needed at home or in some newer conflicts.

 

[ceecee]

The fact that this is still fully active story almost 20 years later in a way says that USA lost this war. Since it simply didn't manage to achieve what it wanted.
However there are more important hot spots out there. At this point Afghanistan is simply too deep into hostile sphere of influence that you can do anything there without huge amount of resources and energy. Which are much needed at home or in some newer conflicts.

Of course the US lost this war. It accomplished nothing, other than enriching military contractors and politicians and destroying millions of lives. Which apparently was the entire point of this invasion - same with Iraq.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Of course the US lost this war. It accomplished nothing, other than enriching military contractors and politicians and destroying millions of lives. Which apparently was the entire point of this invasion - same with Iraq.

In my book the starting idea wasn't bad, turning Afghanistan into a stable democracy is a worthy goal. However the strategy was a total miss, since nothing really was invested into the fundamental development of the country. What then opened the path for permanent conflict. While development would probably even save money since this mess would have probably ended long time ago. I mean after a certain point this was a problem that you can't rally solve with guns, especially if you don't want to do massive war crimes. Iraq was basically the exact same story, something should have been built on the ruins of the regime.

 

[anticlimatic]

Since you are usually wrong in your assessments about me (and are so again here), I can see why you would think we have a lot in common.

Oh we don't have much in common anymore. I just meant I see a lot of my younger self in you. Either way, my curiosity regarding you is satiated. Thank you for the data.

 

[The Cat]

Afghanistan belongs to something that does not suffer outsiders well.

 

[ceecee]

Afghanistan belongs to something that does not suffer outsiders well.

Yeah. Ask the British. Or the Russians. But I've always wondered if the US and allies killed more Afghans than Tamerlane. We'll never actually know.

 

[ceecee]

In my book the starting idea wasn't bad, turning Afghanistan into a stable democracy is a worthy goal. However the strategy was a total miss, since nothing really was invested into the fundamental development of the country. What then opened the path for permanent conflict. While development would probably even save money since this mess would have probably ended long time ago. I mean after a certain point this was a problem that you can't rally solve with guns, especially if you don't want to do massive war crimes. Iraq was basically the exact same story, something should have been built on the ruins of the regime.

It was a surrender. Never saw a US president lose 3 wars in a single term. In two terms. In any terms. Amazing.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It was a surrender. Never saw a US president lose 3 wars in a single term. In two terms. In any terms. Amazing.

About which 3 are we talking ? There are too many of them not to be specific.

 

[ceecee]

About which 3 are we talking ? There are too many of them not to be specific.

Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq. But people seem to be under the impression that it means the troops are pulling out.

What, deprive the military contractors, third party posers and corporations an income? That's crazy talk.