Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign

[DieChecker 26,971]

6 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

No, it isn't.

Whether or not the position is correct or incorrect, that is not why it is being dismissed.  That is the problem.

I think that is only your opinion. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Conservatives can't dismiss feeble arguments due to logic, it can only be due to their being bigots??

Let me guess... Racism... Sexism... Antisemitism... Homophobia.... Hitting near the target?

I think it is discriminatory to assume that I'm being discriminatory. You don't know my motives, or those of pretty much anyone else, but you assume you do, and attribute that opinion onto why people are being dismissed. It is your opinion. Or, please post some kind of resource why I should believe that protesting liberals are being not taken seriously only due to discrimination/haters.

Edited December 20, 2016 by DieChecker

[rashore 17,367]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Also that area of Detroit votes approximately 90% Democrat, so likely, they don't want to highlight their side (Liberalism) committing errors.

I think that might play into it.. but not so much.

Detroit is a broke down city in a lot of ways. I think it's general break down that's more of a culprit than anything else honestly. The EFM problems and oversights, general equipment age, election funding.. people being interested in being an election inspector is a huge problem pretty much everywhere.

 

 

[Thorvir 13,943]

23 hours ago, stereologist said:

I find it odd that Bill Clinton would bring up the Russian hacker story.  What did the hacking of the email reveal? That's right it was not personal secrets  it was that Hillary is an untrustable crook that will make secret deals to prevent legitimate elections from happening.

The US already knew that anyway.

[Merc14 22,526]

The real  Hillary face as she blames everyone but her for another loss. 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/12/20/released-hillary-search-warrant-n2261870?utm_content=bufferced21&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Edited December 21, 2016 by Merc14

[.ZZ. 28,575]

[Merc14 22,526]

4 minutes ago, -ZZ- said:

That's cruel ZZ, especially since she actually looks like that now (see above)   

Honestly, I think this crook is running again and is simply setting things up so the money keeps flowing.  Let us all hope she is successful in further suffocating the competition so that we can fix this mess the progressives have put this country into.  The left is delusional enough to support her act one more time (see MIA ninjadude)

On the other hand she should be prosecuted for public corruption and put in prison but then she won't be available to lose AGAIN!!.

 

[Michelle 23,416]

I'm so glad we will have a president, I can voice disagreement with, whose followers won't be able to call me all of the above.

It has become extremely tedious. 

[.ZZ. 28,575]

5 minutes ago, Michelle said:

I'm so glad we will have a president, I can voice disagreement with, whose followers won't be able to call me all of the above.

It has become extremely tedious. 

Great point Michelle, I've grown weary of it all of myself.

 

[Merc14 22,526]

13 minutes ago, Michelle said:

I'm so glad we will have a president, I can voice disagreement with, whose followers won't be able to call me all of the above.

It has become extremely tedious. 

Well no matter what he does the MSM will be condemning his every move.   That is a given.  The good thing is he bypasses them and therefore renders them obsolete and therefore extraneous.  When they start firing these biased twits we will all see hoe deep their philosophy goes. 

We haven't had a free and unbiased press in many decades but bankruptcy tends to change philosophies and this election cycle, where they admitted their bias and were proud should kill off many of the apparatchiks that populate the MSM admin.  

If I was Trump I'd bypass most of them entirely, starve them out and insult them at every turn so as to make them look as ridiculous and absurdly biased as they truly are.  Freedom of the press means you should be reporting reality, not playing the adjunct propaganda arm of the DNC.

[.ZZ. 28,575]

No more PC BS:

Quote

Trump called the brazen shooting of Russia’s ambassador to Turkey “a violation of all rules of civilized order.” He added that a “radical Islamic terrorist” had assassinated the diplomat, Andrei Karlov.

It's about time somebody called a spade a spade.

[Hammerclaw 29,423]

This thread has out-lived it's purpose. President Trump. Still hard to believe, but a reality all must deal with.

For those who wish to change the current political landscape, time to put your noses to the grindstone and reacquire the necessary skills to effect change, politically.  Getting rowdy in the streets just doesn't cut it, it just gets you royally disliked by ordinary voters who want to get on with their lives. You'll have to do it, State by State, because the Electoral College System isn't going anywhere. There's no way enough States would ratify an amendment which would basically hand the balance of political power to California, Texas and New York. You'll have reconnect with the grassroots in all of those fly-over States that handed the election to Trump. It's going to take a lot of hard work, not just holding hands, lighting candles and chanting. You've got your work cut out for you; best get to it.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Hammerclaw

[aquatus1 7,093]

17 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think that is only your opinion. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

About 200 years worth.  As I have said to you before, this may seem new to you, but it has been going on for a long time to others.

Quote

Conservatives can't dismiss feeble arguments due to logic, it can only be due to their being bigots??

They can, but, being that they are humans, they usually don't.  In and of itself, that isn't the problem.  The problem is that they then convince themselves that they are doing so for rational reasons, and ignore why they dismissed it in the first place.

It's actually an extension of what I teach in marketing class, on how to get people to do what you want them to do.

Quote

Let me guess... Racism... Sexism... Antisemitism... Homophobia.... Hitting near the target?

It's simpler than that.  Racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, those are the left versions of dismissing things without rationality or logic.  And, similarly, they proceed to convince themselves they are correct.  And identically, sometimes they are correct, and sometimes they are incorrect.  But the main problem, as you are openly acknowledging, is that the original reason for the dismissal was not logic and rationality, but rather, mere emotion.

Quote

I think it is discriminatory to assume that I'm being discriminatory. You don't know my motives, or those of pretty much anyone else, but you assume you do, and attribute that opinion onto why people are being dismissed. It is your opinion.

You can assume whatever you like, but when all is said and done, even if I knew absolutely nothing about you (which is actually not the case, as no decent marketer or negotiator who has spoken to someone for over an hour, never mind the years we personally have spoken, would not be capable of putting together a decent market work-up on any given person), you are simply a statistical average.  You keep thinking of your actions as those of an individual, but you are really not acting any different from any other average person on either side.

Quote

Or, please post some kind of resource why I should believe that protesting liberals are being not taken seriously only due to discrimination/haters.

Oh, there are tons, but most would be incorrect.  Or, at least misleading.  Some by error, some intentionally.

However, to truly understand what s happening, you need to separate yourself from the same exact force which is compelling your arguments, even now, as we speak.  Once you can do that, things (particularly actions and predictions), became remarkably clearer, and much, much, more anti-climactic.  But it isn't anywhere near impossible to do so; that is precisely, after all, what all my customers expected me to teach their employees in marketing and negotiation.

[DieChecker 26,971]

On 12/21/2016 at 6:42 AM, aquatus1 said:

About 200 years worth.  As I have said to you before, this may seem new to you, but it has been going on for a long time to others.

They can, but, being that they are humans, they usually don't.  In and of itself, that isn't the problem.  The problem is that they then convince themselves that they are doing so for rational reasons, and ignore why they dismissed it in the first place.

It's actually an extension of what I teach in marketing class, on how to get people to do what you want them to do.

It's simpler than that.  Racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, those are the left versions of dismissing things without rationality or logic.  And, similarly, they proceed to convince themselves they are correct.  And identically, sometimes they are correct, and sometimes they are incorrect.  But the main problem, as you are openly acknowledging, is that the original reason for the dismissal was not logic and rationality, but rather, mere emotion.

You can assume whatever you like, but when all is said and done, even if I knew absolutely nothing about you (which is actually not the case, as no decent marketer or negotiator who has spoken to someone for over an hour, never mind the years we personally have spoken, would not be capable of putting together a decent market work-up on any given person), you are simply a statistical average.  You keep thinking of your actions as those of an individual, but you are really not acting any different from any other average person on either side.

Oh, there are tons, but most would be incorrect.  Or, at least misleading.  Some by error, some intentionally.

However, to truly understand what s happening, you need to separate yourself from the same exact force which is compelling your arguments, even now, as we speak.  Once you can do that, things (particularly actions and predictions), became remarkably clearer, and much, much, more anti-climactic.  But it isn't anywhere near impossible to do so; that is precisely, after all, what all my customers expected me to teach their employees in marketing and negotiation.

Still that all is just a bunch of opinion and double talk. I'm no closer to seeing logical reasons to believe you then I was before. All you said is that some people are emotion driven, and I agree with that, and some are logical driven, and I agree with that.

I still don't know why I should accept the arguments of the marginalized liberals, of what happened in the election, other then because of some point that everyone is emotional and we have to listen because they are marginalized.

The fact is that there was no large scale voter fraud, or elections fraud found. No evidence of Russian tampering on election day. Only that the Russians hacked generic email accounts of some Democrat politicians, and leaked it to the internet. And attacked some State election departments way before election day... Those are the facts. Also that Democrat turnout was down, and Republican turnout was up.

What more am I supposed to consider when told that Trump shouldn't be President because many people have hurt feelings over it? How do I "less marginalize" and "listen" to these people when they have no factual basis for their arguments? 

[aquatus1 7,093]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Still that all is just a bunch of opinion and double talk.

Yes, racism and un-equal treatment have not existed in the past 200 years.

Quote

I'm no closer to seeing logical reasons to believe you then I was before. All you said is that some people are emotion driven, and I agree with that, and some are logical driven, and I agree with that.

Then don't believe me.  No one asked you to.  You asked me to explain myself, and I did.  If you did not understand it, you should have asked why, instead of going completely on the defensive and claiming nothing was said instead of opinion and double-speak.  Why should you have done that?  Because doing so would not have emphasized my point so well, about how easily one side of an argument dismisses the other side before even presenting any actual reason to do so.

Quote

I still don't know why I should accept the arguments of the marginalized liberals, of what happened in the election, other then because of some point that everyone is emotional and we have to listen because they are marginalized.

You shouldn't.  What you should do is try to understand them.  Once you understand them, then you can make the decision as to whether to accept them or not.  Instead, you are wasting a remarkable amount of effort in just avoiding understanding.

[lost_shaman 2,866]

I think the liberals who marginalize everyone but themselves should pursue a new level of understanding of "fly over" Americans.

[Yamato 13,197]

On 12/21/2016 at 0:23 AM, -ZZ- said:

No more PC BS:

It's about time somebody called a spade a spade.

You can call it whatever you want.  It doesn't solve the problem it causes even more of it.  

Let me guess, Bashar al Assad isn't fighting radical Islamic terrorism?   The Trump faithful still can't figure out what they want to do with Assad.   Let me predict, whatever their strongman says do, that'll be exactly what they believe.   This faith doesn't come from fact it comes from rhetoric.   What you call things.   What Trump calls things, and what ISIS calls things. 

Because Italians following Mussolini's orders in WW2 were Christian doesn't make them radical Christian terrorists, and it doesn't make the Christians they killed any less Christian than they were.  Italians believed God was on their side too even though they had far less motivation to fight than in this case of foreign military occupying their land.   

It's as if ISIS is dictating our foreign policy with their mere words and beliefs.   Anything someone from ISIS says that we can politically take advantage of, we fall right into it like gravity and a hole.

[Hammerclaw 29,423]

18 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Still that all is just a bunch of opinion and double talk. I'm no closer to seeing logical reasons to believe you then I was before. All you said is that some people are emotion driven, and I agree with that, and some are logical driven, and I agree with that.

I still don't know why I should accept the arguments of the marginalized liberals, of what happened in the election, other then because of some point that everyone is emotional and we have to listen because they are marginalized.

The fact is that there was no large scale voter fraud, or elections fraud found. No evidence of Russian tampering on election day. Only that the Russians hacked generic email accounts of some Democrat politicians, and leaked it to the internet. And attacked some State election departments way before election day... Those are the facts. Also that Democrat turnout was down, and Republican turnout was up.

What more am I supposed to consider when told that Trump shouldn't be President because many people have hurt feelings over it? How do I "less marginalize" and "listen" to these people when they have no factual basis for their arguments? 

We did listen to them, DieChecker. For eight years we've had no choice but to listen them. They're saying nothing new. From their point-of-view, they're right were wrong and if we dispute their infallibility we're defensive and closed-minded. They won't debate the issues because their minds are concluded and attribute their failure to our wrong-headedness. In the face of unmitigated political disaster their aging leaders see no reason to change or acknowledge their on illogic and fallibility. They're not interested in what we think, they're too busy wallowing in their version of sanctimony and righteousness and only want to discuss why we are so wrong and they are so right. That attitude, such as it is, brooks no real discussion.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Hammerclaw

[DieChecker 26,971]

14 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

Yes, racism and un-equal treatment have not existed in the past 200 years.

Then don't believe me.  No one asked you to.  You asked me to explain myself, and I did.  If you did not understand it, you should have asked why, instead of going completely on the defensive and claiming nothing was said instead of opinion and double-speak.  Why should you have done that?  Because doing so would not have emphasized my point so well, about how easily one side of an argument dismisses the other side before even presenting any actual reason to do so.

You shouldn't.  What you should do is try to understand them.  Once you understand them, then you can make the decision as to whether to accept them or not.  Instead, you are wasting a remarkable amount of effort in just avoiding understanding.

I didn't say racism, etc.. doesn't exist. But you are saying that no one understands them. And that we should. But, aside from understanding them, and WHY they are complaining, evidence wise, there is Nothing to complain about. There was nothing found in the recounts that happened to indicate hackers attacked the election results. Assuming those facts are true, then what reason could there be to bow to the requests of those who are troubled by the election results, other then to be sensitive to them? 

You're base assumption is that I don't understand. That is a wrong assumption. I understand full well. My opinion is driven by the fact that I don't care. I don't care if someones feelings were hurt when Trump got elected. That's not a reason to Recount, or to try to flop the election, or to riot. Can you agree to that? That people's hurt feelings are not a justified reason for trying to overturn an election?

[DieChecker 26,971]

38 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

We did listen to them, DieChecker. For eight years we've had no choice but to listen them. They're saying nothing new. From their point-of-view, they're right were wrong and if we dispute their infallibility we're defensive and closed-minded. They won't debate the issues because their minds are concluded and attribute their failure to our wrong-headedness. In the face of unmitigated political disaster their aging leaders see no reason to change or acknowledge their on illogic and fallibility. They're not interested in what we think, they're too busy wallowing in their version of sanctimony and righteousness and only want to discuss why we are so wrong and they are so right. That attitude, such as it is, brooks no real discussion.

Actually if you read enough articles, you come to see that a VAST percentage of Democrats, AND their leadership understand that they MUST change or they face an even worse drubbing in 2020. 

Vice President Biden was taking shots at Clinton just the other day. He said that she lost because she didn't have a message, other then that it was her turn. He said that they depended on their loyal blocks... minorities, woman, LGBT, entertainers... to be 100% behind them. And then when those people didn't turn out in force, they began Blamestorming and pointing fingers.

I'd suggest that with the retirement of Harry Reid, and possibly soon the de-throne-ing of Pelosi, that new leadership can take over and bring the Democrats into the 21st Century. Until they get rid of the Old Wood, they're going to keep losing. 

[aquatus1 7,093]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I didn't say racism, etc.. doesn't exist. But you are saying that no one understands them. And that we should.

No.  I'm saying that they are visibly and blatantly dismissed, and that dismissal sends a message.

Quote

But, aside from understanding them, and WHY they are complaining, evidence wise, there is Nothing to complain about.

And yet, there are a ton of people still complaining, and telling them that they have nothing to complain about, strangely, doesn't seem to make them feel at ease.

Quote

There was nothing found in the recounts that happened to indicate hackers attacked the election results.

But why all the resistance to the investigation?  When you block an investigation with nothing more than your insistence that there is nothing wrong, especially an investigation to determine whether something is wrong in the first place, it sends the message that you either do not want something to be found out, or that you do not care if something happened.  That is not a message that tells people you understand their concerns.

Quote

Assuming those facts are true, then what reason could there be to bow to the requests of those who are troubled by the election results, other then to be sensitive to them? 

It's that thing people are calling "Unity" that presidents are supposed to do for their country.  People will complain all day long about all sorts of things, but at the end of the day, there is supposed to be a communal feeling that at least everyone else is getting screwed over equally.  When only one side is getting it hard, such as when the side with the power can unilaterally declare whether something should be investigated or not, that is when things get tense, and when greater division starts becoming dangerous.

No one blocked investigations into Obama's birth certificates, no one blocked the shut-down of the government (indeed, republicans actively changed the laws to allow it), heck, a group of repubs actually sent a message to a foreign government telling them outright not to side with Obama because they would defeat the decision in Congress regardless, a move that is just this side of treasonous, and yet no action against them was taken. 

This time, there are allegations from intelligence departments regarding possible malfeasance in the election, and suddenly investigations are blocked.  That sort of one-sidedness is what scares people.  That sort of thing indicates that, no matter how you act, the other side isn't seeing you as acting fairly; they are seeing you as being weaker than they are, and therefore incapable of stopping them.

Quote

You're base assumption is that I don't understand.  That is a wrong assumption.

No, my base conclusion is that you don't want to understand.  My base assumption is that you do, but are denying it to yourself.

Quote

I understand full well. My opinion is driven by the fact that I don't care.

Then how is my conclusion that dismissing people's opinions out of emotion incorrect?

Quote

I don't care if someones feelings were hurt when Trump got elected. That's not a reason to Recount, or to try to flop the election, or to riot. Can you agree to that? That people's hurt feelings are not a justified reason for trying to overturn an election?

Not at all.  Why do you think civil wars happen?  Logical reasons?  Because the side in power thinks everything is fine?  Don't be silly, and don't be so much in denial.  Civil wars happen because the gap between the side that thinks everything is fine and the side that has complaints has grown so far that the side with complaints does not believe the side with power cares about them anymore, and therefore the only recourse is violence.  We come full circle, and I thank you for being such a perfect example of the entire issue in a self-contained package.

Everything is not fine.  Pretending it is, ignoring those who disagree, hoping they will go away, only works until the the students break down the palace doors and drag the confused nobility out to the guillotines in the courtyard.

[Hammerclaw 29,423]

If Democrats were so desirous of investigation, why did they wait for weeks until a third party shill did their dirty work for them? This doomed the process to failure for want of time. Sort of self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. As usual, they attribute that failure, as well, to someone else.

[Hammerclaw 29,423]

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Actually if you read enough articles, you come to see that a VAST percentage of Democrats, AND their leadership understand that they MUST change or they face an even worse drubbing in 2020. 

Vice President Biden was taking shots at Clinton just the other day. He said that she lost because she didn't have a message, other then that it was her turn. He said that they depended on their loyal blocks... minorities, woman, LGBT, entertainers... to be 100% behind them. And then when those people didn't turn out in force, they began Blamestorming and pointing fingers.

I'd suggest that with the retirement of Harry Reid, and possibly soon the de-throne-ing of Pelosi, that new leadership can take over and bring the Democrats into the 21st Century. Until they get rid of the Old Wood, they're going to keep losing. 

l wasn't talking about intelligent Democrats, just the ones who can't accept responsibility for their own defeat. It just can't be that they did anything wrong. Someone else must have done something wrong to them!

[DieChecker 26,971]

On 12/24/2016 at 0:26 PM, Hammerclaw said:

l wasn't talking about intelligent Democrats, just the ones who can't accept responsibility for their own defeat. It just can't be that they did anything wrong. Someone else must have done something wrong to them!

Ah, the "you didn't build that" mentality. 

[Kurzweil 1,632]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Ah, the "you didn't build that" mentality. 

Kind of surprised they haven't patented that concept yet. Solid deal too. Who'd steal that ideology except themselves.