Not funny, not even vaguely interesting.
While I was flying from Davos to DC for the inauguration of President Trump, a quiet revolution was being planned in the heart of the American countryside. This week it exploded: the biggest social insurrection in the USA since the Civil War in 1860. Imagine my astonishment when I discovered the family connection! Now, I can …
Read 10 lines, puked on my middle aged shoes and had to comment just to say, I really am tired of whining millennials. I'm sure glad my generation is about to take the reigns away from the 60s raised hippies that have driven our country into the ground and pushed this rainbow vomiting attitude to all the kids for the past 20 years. I'm also glad I'll probably be dead by the time this generation takes over in DC and finishes destroying everything I value and believe to be true and good.
It's amazing to me to see these little shits go on and on about the system they all benefit from every single day when they wake up in their little suburbanite homes, while they twitter about how much America sucks as their mom drives them to the local Starbucks to buy them a $6 cafe latte ("I said NO gluten you idiot!").
One of these days, they'll move out of home, have a mortgage and 2 ungrateful kids and wonder why they only bring home 30% of what they make. Karma always comes back around.
Just saying, if you're under 30, you're a worthless piece of shit. Wiki it.
Have you considered the fact that YOUR generation is responsible for the existence of todays so called "millenials"? It is YOUR generation that gave us all the wonders of "social" networking and "the internet" with no regulations or guidance on how to handle it. It was YOUR generation that raised their kids to be oh so special and super important and entitled.
I am unfortunately also part of the "millenial" generation according to some measures and I keep having to listen to this drivel about how we are all entitled and whining and don't understand the world. In the meantime it's idiots of our parents generation that keep doing stupid stuff like voting for Trump or Clinton (or Wilders, or LePen, or Merkel, or voting for Brexit, or signing the treaty of Maastricht, etc, etc). Meanwhile we get to prepare ourselves for picking up the pieces.
BTW, those "60s raised hippies" had EXACTLY the same rant about YOUR generation. (And in fact, the parents of those hippies had the same rant, and their grandparents... Just keep going back in history and you will find older generations whining about the lack of respect and lack of understanding and bladyblahblah of the younger generation. It's not exactly a new thing)
First... get off my lawn.
Second... It's the policies of DC and State Government over the past 20 years (and sorry kiddo, MY generation, the 40 crowd, hasn't been running this show) that have gotten us here. The fact you can't discipline your kids because they've all been told spanking is child abuse (and given a number to call "a nice man" who will take care of your parents if they are doing that), the schools have been flooded with pro-socialist curriculum and revised American/World history narratives. You were taught things that had no practical value in real life and then we wonder why you can't get jobs or handle taking care of yourselves. This has all been a carefully planned and executed 20 year plan of "dumbing down" the american people to ensure they will be so happy to accept the government taking care of you (like a good Big Brother should)... which is a reference to a book that you were never asked to read.
I don't envy the things your generation will be dealing with, but I can most assuredly say Gen Xers have been watching from the dugout screaming our heads off.
No, my young naive padawan, the state of the nation/world isn't because of my generation (look at the 60-80 year olds in Senate and Congress). It's the exact thing my grandparents said when I was young... Heaven help our nation when the baby boomers are running things... well, this is what happens when folks who grew up listening to Timothy Leary and reading Saul Alinsky get to make policy decisions.
You might not think very highly of the current generation, but many of them HAVE read books like George Orwells "1984" (And yes, I get that reference). If you want more modern and equally horrifyingly too close for comfort read "The Circle" by Dave Eggers. It'll cure you of using Facebook for sure. And leave you even more horrified of the future generations :)
So you recommend President Trump keep his tweet shut and just bow before the Mexican President, the way Obama bowed so low before the king of Saudi Arabia? Well let me straighten you out.
Trump is a patriot. Unlike the late Bower-in-Chief, President Trump likes this country, and doesn't bow to anyone, nor do the rest of us (except Obama). If the Mexican President doesn't like what Trump says, he has a voice too, you know. He doesn't need YOU to chastise Trump for him, altho he won't mind you siding with him over your own President about border integrity.
Oh wait, he's probably not YOUR president.
You got something real to say, or did you just swing by to deliver your snap insult? I mean, witty but meaningless digs may feel good (to you) but they don't contribute to anything else. I would suggest you learn to dispute properly like an adult. Your satisfaction will last longer than that cheap thrill you apparently get from your oh-so-clever one liners.
"Very good, young activist! Now that you and your brethren have managed to cast our antagonist as Chaotic Evil (in record time!) you are enabled to identify all his supporters as 'like him,' thus also evil and chaotic."
And on the winning side. And it's all due to those one liners, go figure.
Trump is also bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia, his restricted entry for Muslims order doesn't include Saudi Arabia nationals or UAE, Turkey, or Egypt nationals. He also has business interests in Saudi Arabia which you don't get without a bit of bowing, as well as those other countries. Amazing coincidence.
You're being played like a fool. You really don't have a clue about what's happening, do you?
He's a patriot ? What sort ?
- Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (Samuel Johnson)
- Patriotism is a maggot in their heads (Thoreau)
- Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious (Wilde)
- Patriotism is "the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers (Tolstoy)
"Trump is a patriot"
That makes him a fundamentalist, as in "my country above all else, right or wrong." He believes that America should be "first amongst equals", which also makes him a supremacist and a fascist. Patriotism is the belief that those people who form the majority population in an abritrary geographical area delimited by a few lines on a map are somehow bound together by that approximation. It's highly illogical, no better than "faith" based divisions and certainly not good for the advancement of mankind as a whole. Next to religion it's the biggest cause of strife and conflict that the world knows.
" doesn't bow to anyone, nor do the rest of us."
That's because you demand that everyone bows to you whilst you bow to no one. You should learn something about respect and how it differs from hubris, yankee. Don't lecture others on being "snowflakes" until you and yours learn what it means. Thanks.
" If the Mexican President doesn't like what Trump says, he has a voice too, you know. He doesn't need YOU to chastise Trump for him"
Yep, trumpet has a voice too. We've all heard it quite enough thank you very much. He can indeed speak for himself and doesn't need you to apologise for him. Next time you seek to put down an opinion with such a weak argument I'd advise trying it out in reverse first.
"Oh wait, he's probably not YOUR president"
No, he's not. Thank heavens for small mercies. We have our own facist leader to deal with in the UK.
"...reminds me of 'Intelligent Design' and that other bit of bunkum 'Creationism'"
You're really talking about 'origin stories' which exist in all cultures. People in the past needed some kind of explanation for the unexplainable, so they made up stories that covered the known facts.
Now we have science to explain better about our world and where it came from, but that same science has revealed deeper levels to the puzzle of our primary origin. Once we consider the moment of the Big Bang we are on our own again, just like our ancestors were.
'where everything in Genesis is true'
yeah, dogmatic adherence to things of that nature [in the face of some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary] isn't very smart-looking, is it?
I say the same thing about climate "science" these days.
I see the alleged "fact bombs" saying things like "97% of scientists" and my first reaction is always "_WHICH_ scientists"?
Anyone on the intarwebs can claim ANYTHING, and randomly tw[a,ee]ting "facts" like that is pretty meaningless. People criticize Trump's claims of 3-5 million fraudulent voters, and I have to agree, there's no apparent basis for him to make that claim. But there's an investigation going on, and if they find 1 million, I'll still be JUST as appalled... [and just as NOT surprised].
I also have to wonder, if Trump's "fact bombs" are, in fact, a way of throwing the same crap back at "the left" that they've been slinging for YEARS.
/me stands up on the top of the porcelain throne, and yells "CRAP FIGHT!"
> I see the alleged "fact bombs" saying things like "97% of scientists" and my first reaction is always "_WHICH_ scientists"?
But it is only the deniers that say "97% of scientists" as a way of making it look meaningless. The actual quote is:
"""Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."""
A simple Google search is all that was required to answer your question of "_WHICH_".
The issue is not whether climate change is happening, that is unarguable. The issue is: what is the cause of the change. The relationship between CO2 levels and 'greenhouse effect' has been established. The cause of the rise in CO2 is clear. The only argument left is what will happen over the next few years: the fundamentalist conservatives (which Trump has aligned himself with) say that "God will fix it because He is on Our side". The oil companies (which Trump has investments in) simply deny it is happening (cf Tobacco companies and lung cancer). Deniers say it is just an environmentalist conspiracy plot to boost their funding (which Trump will cancel when he dismantles the EPA which interferes with his oil stocks).
"The issue is not whether climate change is happening, that is unarguable. The issue is: what is the cause of the change."
Agreed, yes, but I can't agree with your later demonisation of "Deniers". Well, I can agree but can I also mention that some "deniers" are just "sceptics" as in scientific scepticism. You see, an awful lot of climate science is based on predictive computer models rather than experiment and many of these scientists involved in the research are largely copying each others theorhetical models rather than establishing their own research. In other words they are taking each others models as rote - as fact.
Add to that a measure of financial incentive (on all sides of the argument), peer review either being non-existant or being mutual (You review my climate change paper, I'll review yours) and a fairly substantial swathe of data/findings either being withheld or partially selective with data and you have a 'climate' (see what I did there?) in which scepticism can thrive.
Putting ALL scepticism down as some sort of low intelligence, conspiracist movement is a bad thing, but so is simply taking consensus as science. Real scientists employ the scientific method to their studies and do not withhold, manipulate or adjust data to suit theory, and I would like to see more of the much vaunted 97% doing just that in order to remove ALL the questions that people still have.
If its such a massive issue (and it clearly appears to be) then eliminating all doubt is the first step towards a unified response.
> but I can't agree with your later demonisation of "Deniers"
I am not sure where I did that at all, perhaps you could point that out.
OTOH some "Deniers" seem to demonise climate scientists and others that see climate change actually happening, such as 'Big John', who flat out denies anything bad is happening or will ever happen, and says it is all fake and for the money. He also is confused because 'global warming' makes it colder in the south in winter (which is actually because there is more energy to take the cold artic air further south).
> some "deniers" are just "sceptics" as in scientific scepticism.
That is certainly true. But sceptics are able to voice their concerns without resorting to personal attacks (such as calling them fools) and can provide the evidence they used to produce alternate explanations for the global record high temperatures and increasingly more active weather patterns.
> In other words they are taking each others models as rote - as fact.
As someone related the other day: "How can weather scientists get it right when some weather forecasts for tomorrow say it will be cloudy and others say it will rain". It may be true that there may be some minor disagreement over the forecast for tomorrow, but we can all agree on the weather that happened yesterday. That was record highs, record number of stronger weather systems, Arctic ice is less, Antarctic sea ice is thinner, glaciers are retreating, sea levels are higher than 30 years ago.
> in order to remove ALL the questions that people still have.
There is no doubt that CO2 levels are higher than at any time in the last 100,000 years (and certainly since records were kept), that warming of the seas and atmosphere (more energy) is happening. The "deniers" are the ones that are denying the actual objective measurements. In some cases they are doing it because they don't want anyone telling them they can't buy petrol anymore, or can't pump oil out of the ground, or can't burn down a forest.
> Putting ALL scepticism down as some sort of low intelligence, conspiracist movement is a bad thing
I can't recall ever doing that. It may well be that some are as you describe, but did I actually describe anyone like that? and I certainly can't recall writing hyperbolically.
> People criticize Trump's claims of 3-5 million fraudulent voters, and I have to agree, there's no apparent basis for him to make that claim. But there's an investigation going on, and if they find 1 million, I'll still be JUST as appalled... [and just as NOT surprised].
The apparent basis of his claim is his narcissistic ego that requires him to have won the popular vote. Just as he can't stand the idea that his inauguration audience in the mall wasn't the biglyest ever and that the protests the next day were several times larger.
He clings to the estimates that there are indeed several million duplicate registrations* or dead people on the register (who have died between registering and the election. There is zero evidence that there are any fraudulent votes cast. On previous elections fraud was calculated at between 0.00004% and 0.0009%. While Trump has claimed that NONE had fraudulently voted for him and 3-5 million voted for Clinton it is interesting to note that several of the new White House inmates were registered in two states, including Tiffany Trump.
The whole point of finding voter fraud is to add new rules to registration to deny votes to anyone would vote against him in the next election. If the investigation finds (or invents) fraudulent voting then the rules would be tightened to require, say, photo id such as a driver's licence. Inner city poor and non-whites tend not to own cars and to not have licences. Thus they would be excluded from registering or voting. This could be enough for the republicans to hold onto power in 2020, and thus shall be done.
* When someone moves from one state to another and registers in the new state, or when someone dies, the old registration isn't removed until the register is reviewed later.
The idea that there were 3-5 million illegal votes cast, or even half a million, is beyond ridiculous. But now I hear talk that the investigation is going to look at "dead people who are registered", "people who are registered in more than one state" (which both Ivanka Trump and Steve Bannon were, apparently) and other such errors. That will give Trump a little room to claim "I was right" without actually proving his claim at all. It should look for actual votes cast, not registration problems, but I'm not sure if the federal government can even legally demand states provide them a list of who voted.
Obviously there will be many many such registration problems found, because most/all states probably lack a good process for stuff like that. If I move to Florida, I don't send a note to my local auditor, or the secretary of state, letting them know I've moved so please cancel my registration in this state. Nor should I be expected to. So how will they know? I guess if I don't vote here for 10 years maybe they will take me off the roll, I don't know. Likewise, if I die, do they have a process to remove me from the roll? Maybe if I die around here, but I wouldn't count on it. If I move to Florida and die there, almost certainly not.
I'm sure there are millions of dead people, and millions of people who live in another state now, and millions who have moved and are registered in the wrong precinct, simply because this is all managed at a local level and they don't worry about this stuff. Should they? I don't think it matters, so long as no one tries to vote in my name after I've died, and I don't try to vote both here and in Florida after I've moved.
The Daley machine used to bring out the vote of the 'dead' back in the day. I don't know if that still happens, but it is irrelevant to the election since Illinois is a democrat state regardless. People who have a second home illegally voting in Florida is very relevant - the best outcome would be some national database that tracks where you vote so you can't vote in two different places. Somehow I doubt Trump's investigation will focus on that because it is sure to ensnare some republicans and he's already on record as say that every single one of the fraudulent votes was for Hillary, with zero going for him.
> "The idea that there were 3-5 million illegal votes cast, or even half a million, is beyond ridiculous."
How so, Doug? On what basis do you make that assumption, because it IS an assumption, you know. In a large secret vote, all the integrity of the system resides at the lowest levels, where votes are collected and then counted. What was that Stalin allegedly once said?
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
So if a certain fraction of a vote total is illegal, the only way to discover this is to look at the polling places and what goes on there.
But that's exactly what Democrats never want to allow! Asking people to prove who they are is "voter suppression" and questions about vote counts greatly exceeding actual voter rolls are flat out ignored as "crazy talk."
Let's assume for argument's sake that California did have a couple million illegal votes. How are we going to detect it, given that The Dems controlling that state do everything in their power to cloud and obscure the process? If the Dems are NOT deliberately cheating, they would welcome an examination of elections they control so that exoneration would swiftly be followed by demands for apology. That ain't happening tho and never will as long as that party benefits from imported votes. BTW, Republican controlled voting processes are to be examined just the same. It's not the Reps who are trying to block any investigation, it's the Democrat Party.
Basically most citizens just want our election process to be clean and don't appreciate how the Dems fight against that idea tooth and nail, going so far as to label anyone who tries a racists. It's dirty and insulting and it's stopping right now.
I make that assumption based on the fact there is ZERO evidence to back up such a claim, and it is up to those making such a claim to prove it, not for me to prove the claims are false.
Find a single state election supervisor in either a red or a blue state who suggests such widespread fraud is taking place in their state. It is fine to put forth "what ifs" but outrageous claims require proof. Already Trump's claim that "all" the voter fraud was against him is proven false: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/10/28/voter-fraud-suspect-arrested-des-moines/92892042/
I welcome Trump's investigation. While I think it is a waste of money, it will make him look stupid when he can't prove his claims and he'll be forced to admit he lost the popular vote. I just hope it is thorough and covers actual PROVEN fraud, and doesn't devolve into some bullshit about "look at how many dead people are registered to vote in California" or "see there's a guy with the name Jose Perez registered to vote in Los Angeles and here's an illegal alien named Jose Perez who lives in Los Angeles, proof that they are allowing illegals to vote". I'll bet that's what it actually contains in the end when true fraud becomes very difficult to find. So he'll have to hype it by obfuscating facts and conflating "poorly maintained registration rolls" with assumptions that all the people who don't belong on the rolls voted, without showing that they actually did. And his clueless supporters will eat it up and be posting all sorts of crap on Facebook about how Trump "proved he really won the popular vote" by linking to lies at Breibart.
I think the reason some congressional republicans are reluctant to support such an investigation is that it will hurt republican efforts at the state level to require voter ID. If the US government does a wide ranging investigation of voter fraud and finds almost no actual fraud, then the main argument for requiring voter ID becomes problematic. And by the way, I'm not against requiring ID to vote either, but only if sufficient protections are in place to insure it isn't just a way of suppressing the minority vote which is the true goal of most voter ID efforts.
"And by the way, I'm not against requiring ID to vote either, but only if sufficient protections are in place to insure it isn't just a way of suppressing the minority vote which is the true goal of most voter ID efforts."
Are you aware that Voter ID laws have not suppressed minority voting at all? Indeed, black turnout has zoomed, up to equal or higher percentages than whites for a decade now, right at the time the ID laws were taking effect in a dozen states. But, sadly, from my reading at PBS.org it appears that, regardless of the actual turnout results by race, the ID laws are "intended to suppress minority voting" and are therefore bad. I saw the phrase in multiple sites, so it appears to be a PC requirement to have those proclamations in all voter ID articles. It's clear to me now where some of your arguments originate.
There is no way to prove the ID laws are not intended to suppress voting, since that involves inner motivations and not outward acts. Nor can it be proved the opposite.
I refuse to accept the liberal shibboleth about "proven voter suppression" is not just lefty propaganda supporting the Democrats and their imported voters.
So all we really have to stand on here are turnouts. And those turnout totals don't support your accusations of racism against the Republican Party, at least in this one instance.
Where did I say anything about it being "proven" that voter ID laws are intended to or do suppress the minority vote? I only said sufficient protections are required to insure it doesn't. i.e. if a voter ID law doesn't provide a way for a registered voter who doesn't have an acceptable because he doesn't have a license or passport, he should be able to get a free picture ID.
If he has to pay for it, then it is basically a return of the 'poll tax'.
"the best outcome would be some national database that tracks where you vote so you can't vote in two different places"
Woah there! Can you think what a corrupt state with a reactionary leader would do with a list of who voted where and for whom?
Thank heavens that could never happen in the USA.
Woah there! Can you think what a corrupt state with a reactionary leader would do with a list of who voted where and for whom?
Whoa there yourself, I didn't say the database would keep a copy of who you voted for, only that you voted! How else can you verify that someone who is registered in two states didn't vote twice if you don't have a way to correlate this information between states?
Anyway, who you voted for isn't saved anywhere, since there is nothing linking you to your ballot. But when I vote in person, the nice little old lady puts a checkmark by my name so I don't come back later to vote again. So that information already exists somewhere, though probably only in those books and not in an electronic form.
Another alternative would be to simply make it illegal to be registered in two places - compare the registration DBs and whichever registration is 'later' causes the earlier one to be canceled. Of course the problem is, if someone got your personal information they could register under your name in another state and leave you unable to vote on election day, so that's not really a good solution either. There would have to be some sort of databases at a federal level to straighten all this out, otherwise all voter IDs do is inconvenience poor people while leaving rich people who can afford multiple homes the potential for multiple votes in multiple states.
> Anyway, who you voted for isn't saved anywhere, since there is nothing linking you to your ballot.
If there is no link to the ballot paper then how do they cancel your multiple votes? Or are you suggesting they leave fraudulent votes stand ?
> otherwise all voter IDs do is inconvenience poor people
It is called 'disenfranchise', and, yes, it seems that Republicans would like to do that.
Yes, let the fraudulent votes stand. I don't know how many are doing it now, but if the government announced a process for checking for duplicate voting I expect the number of such duplicate votes would be tiny. The vote count errors from stuff like scanning problems or human error like displaced ballots would be quite a bit higher than from double voting.
Trying to achieve an EXACT count is a laudable goal, but it is only a goal. Certainly you can't create the possibility of linking votes to individuals just to solve a problem that would add 0.00001% error to the count in a state like Florida.
If someone wants to pay for extra votes by going to prison for a couple years, be my guest :)
That obvious science mistake was an amusing mockery of "snowflake" activist 'facts', which can turn out to be bad science or other kinds of nonsense, to often for financial/political gain.
I saw an equally amusing comment on Zerohedge about mistaken criticism of the part of a scientists comment about the weight of CO2 from burnt Gas (Petrol), when other parts of their comment were more sensible targets for criticism.
The Left has conditioned a lot of vulnerable young minds via the state education system, include the significant biases of Feminists (disguised socialists), thus more "snowflakes".