Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Giest118]

If everything is as fucked up as you keep saying, there's not even going to be a real counting of votes. Somebody's just going to throw out some numbers that sound plausible while giving Hillary the win.

This election is a clown show.

[Durandal]

This election is a clown show.

Seriously, it's like the USA is the only country in the world where elections are such massive megapaloozas of celebrity bullshit which distorts common sense and the fabric of reality to alter perception of actual events. I'd suggest that the first order of business is to do away with all the fanfare and keep it to the point, even if you risk alienating 50% of your potential voters because of boring politics. Otherwise 'informed decisions' become 'decisions informed by popular opinion' and you end up with another Brexit.

Here in the Netherlands it's considered abnormal when you involve your family in your political campaign. Heck, politicians breaking character and behaving like human beings is enough to become the talk of the day here. Our political campaigns are more straightforward and I'd hardly say turning elections into a boxing match does anything but divide the people.

[Ed Oscuro]

Fake apologies to anybody who was really interested in having a debate with my posts earlier, but the previous page has me guessing that the anti-Hillary crowd is just churning out as many posts in as little time.

But here's something to ponder, maybe.

We all know that we're being fed lines of nonsense, right? So it's pretty ironic that the anti-Hillary and anti-Obama crowds end up mouthing other people's nonsense. But when I look into what the record actually shows, it's dismissed out of hand, presumably because it doesn't agree with the received plotline. I've really got no respect or time for that. Surely Hillary and Obama aren't perfect but I'm not so happy with people who pretend that everything is a lie except, perhaps by magic, what they believe.

Different topic: Yesterday's "On The Media" broadcast was another slam dunk. I heard segments of two interviews.

Polls: Modern polling first done by George Gallup in 1935, when people were overjoyed that somebody cared about their ideas. Response rate then: 90%. Today's response rate: 3%. Ask yourself "if it's just reaching 3% of the electorate, how can a poll claim to explain anything?" Polls are being used as an 'unbiased' source of voter wisdom but in this context it's more like rolling the dice, and polls are being used in ways they weren't originally intended to. Polls are being used to determine who gets in a debate and even where they get to stand. Polls might work well if they were being used to inform decision makers about the people, but in reality they're used to give punditry a horse race. Polls also change the race, especially as commissioned polls seeking a result are fed into larger models of who wins an election. The guest criticizes the idea that we can be sanguine about "bad polls" because Nate Silver's organization has called them out - "good polls drive bad polls." Finally, polls long before the election are banned in some other countries, and the guest suggests reforms like that might work here.

Advertising and the ground game: The second guest said that all campaign managers will talk up the "ground game," but the people dedicated enough to go from house to house to talk to people tend to be extremists / true believers and candidates seeking to broaden their appeal to include non-true-believers have an uneasy relationship with them. Most of the money goes to ad buys, and a large amount of that money goes to the consultants who buy the ads, in kickbacks from the television stations, up to 30% of the total ad buy amount. (see: Corey Lewandowski whining about not getting rich.) This despite the fact that research shows television spots are basically wasted money. Why does this happen? Because it keeps the chattering classes happy.

So there's a few things that a real progressive candidate could try to blow up, I would hope.

[Bitter Almonds]

I'm not here to argue or debate anything. I take it for granted people are already dead set in their convictions. I just tell mine. Just as some firmly believe douchebag is the lesser of two evils than turd sandwich or vice versa, I firmly believe there's no distinction between those two clowns. It's the worst presidential shit show I've ever seen. I didn't think the bush vs Gore election could be topped at leaving me aghast, but the party establishment can plumb the depths of people's stupidity and gullibility. Idiocracy has arrived earlier than predicted.

[BryanM]

At least upgrade to the correct term "$hillary". Even if you really really want to call her shrill or the c-word, it's better not to. It only gives her more points and undermines awareness of the poopiness of bought corporate robots in general. Objective over subjective. Minimize wolf crying.

Anyway, once again, an impending 9 or so gigadeaths await us.

tldr:

* We need several hundred liquid fuel fission reactors in order to not die.
* We need to have started building them about 20 years ago.
* The people in power are completely aware of this. Ergo, why they have noone scheduled to be the puppet in chief after Clinton.
* Al Gore is the only asshole who gave even a little bit of a shit about it.
* Would Al Gore have been able to save our ignorant asses if he was allowed to be president as he was elected to do so? (Probably not.)

What's really weird are those conspiracy theorists who are all like "they wouldn't kill everyone on the planet in order to pocket 80 trillion dollars!" I've heard some really dumb thoughts, but man that's at the summit. Mansions full of cocaine and hookers don't buy themselves.



^ Pictured: Who decides public policy and how it is decided.

[Bitter Almonds]

Name some sacrifices $hillary has ever made, besides sacrificing the public's trust, her credibility, and other people's lives when she approved to invade Iraq.

[quash]

If everything is as fucked up as you keep saying, there's not even going to be a real counting of votes. Somebody's just going to throw out some numbers that sound plausible while giving Hillary the win.

This election is a clown show.

That's why people are volunteering to be election monitors now, to help ensure the integrity of votes.

I know, I know, it's crazy and makes no sense and anyone with a pulse should be able to vote and there's no reason for any oversight. But when Hillary is starting to spend money on advertising in California of all places, you might want to consider the very real possibility that people simply don't trust her.

[Squire Grooktook]

You don't have anything to say relevant to this community.

I'm starting to get weirded out by the number of people who, not only don't post about shmups, but don't post about video games at all here.

[Volteccer_Jack]

Anyway, once again, an impending 9 or so gigadeaths await us.

tldr:

* We need several hundred liquid fuel fission reactors in order to not die.
* We need to have started building them about 20 years ago.
* The people in power are completely aware of this. Ergo, why they have noone scheduled to be the puppet in chief after Clinton.
* Al Gore is the only asshole who gave even a little bit of a shit about it.
* Would Al Gore have been able to save our ignorant asses if he was allowed to be president as he was elected to do so? (Probably not.)

I know enough about weather and climate to know that anybody who thinks they know anything about climate change is virtually guaranteed to be talking out of their ass. Large hadron colliders are child's play compared to understanding the Earth's atmosphere, and this kind of sensationalizing makes you sound like the people who were worried the LHC was gonna destroy the planet with a black hole (i.e. crazy). It doesn't help the problem, it just makes reasonable people more likely to distance themselves from the solutions you offer. Of course by now it doesn't much matter what someone says about it because the Rich-Asshats-Buying-Scientific-Studies war over it a while back poisoned the well pretty thoroughly on both sides.

And on that note, Trump is the better candidate because he will break something and we've reached the point where that's better than most alternatives.

[Mischief Maker]

And on that note, Trump is the better candidate because he will break something and we've reached the point where that's better than most alternatives.

Well yeah, he's pledged to break all of Obama's climate change-related executive orders and then break the department of environmental.

Franky I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative under Hillary that's worse than what he's promised, but I guess I lack imagination.

[Giest118]

Well yeah, he's pledged to break all of Obama's climate change-related executive orders and then break the department of environmental.

Franky I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative under Hillary that's worse than what he's promised, but I guess I lack imagination.

Trump's fuckups will be loud, explosive, and accidental. Clinton's will be deliberate and slow-cooked to perfection.

Either way, we're all dead. Who gives a shit. Humankind ends on January 1st, 2017. Everything is meaningless. Hope is an illusion.

Assuming you buy into all the narratives, that is.

[Bitter Almonds]

The only time I'd consider voting for $hillary would be to vote against ted cruhz' holy inquisition.

[rancor]

Anyway, once again, an impending 9 or so gigadeaths await us.
.

Guaranteed to be more catastrophic than 1973 peak oil, Y2k, The Mayan 2012 apocalypse, and the Election of Barack Hussein Obama combined!!!11

[MOSQUITO FIGHTER]

How about we don't have a president anymore and we all just promise to be real cool people from now on?

[quash]

Now that we know what's going to happen come November, it's time to start asking the real hard hitting questions, such as who's going to voice who in the inevitable 2016 election anime.

I nominate Shuichi Ikeda for Trump.

[BulletMagnet]

The only time I'd consider voting for $hillary would be to vote against ted cruhz' holy inquisition.

What about Mike Pence's?

[Wata123]

It's almost like a certain video game called this years before it grabbed our society by the throat.

Name of the game?

[Bitter Almonds]

The only time I'd consider voting for $hillary would be to vote against ted cruhz' holy inquisition.

What about Mike Pence's?

Offset by kleptocrat, tim cain.

[quash]

It's almost like a certain video game called this years before it grabbed our society by the throat.

Name of the game?

Metal Gear Solid 2. If you haven't played it, do so. If it's been years since the last time you played it, watch the cutscenes through the lens of present day media hysteria and mass confirmation bias via memes.

[quash]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tice-judge

Would you look at this, it's yet another instance of the authoritarian left trying to subvert basic rule of law by hiding behind "oppressed" groups.

I guess this is the kind of thing we're hoping a Hillary appointed Supreme Court justice would approve? I honestly don't know, you tell me!

[Ed Oscuro]

An op-ed in a British paper is the downfall of the US justice system? Because I'd vote for Hillary or Bernie I'm automatically OK with throwing out rights of the accused? Eh, okay. And here I thought we had some mutual understanding going on about retributive justice. (The operative word is still "justice," though; I would personally call raped women an obviously legitimate oppressed group, even if you won't.)

That was you, right? My memory may be playing tricks on me again, but...I hope this isn't the second time you're making a big deal about rape.

Striking a bit closer to home (from WaPo):

[...] But Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement “it seems that much of the material given to the Senate today, other than copies of the large number of emails on Secretary Clinton’s server containing classified information, is marked ‘unclassified/for official use.'”

“The FBI should make as much of the material available as possible,” Grassley said. “The public’s business ought to be public, with few exceptions. The people’s interest would be served in seeing the documents that are unclassified. The FBI has made public statements in describing its handling of the case, so sharing documents in support of those statements wherever appropriate would make sense. Right now, the public is at a disadvantage and has only part of the story.”

While FOIA is a noble thing, let's be real here: Releasing "the public's business" is as far from the original rationale given for the email inquiries as you can possibly get.

[Mischief Maker]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tice-judge

Would you look at this, it's yet another instance of the authoritarian left trying to subvert basic rule of law by hiding behind "oppressed" groups.

I guess this is the kind of thing we're hoping a Hillary appointed Supreme Court justice would approve? I honestly don't know, you tell me!

Huh?

It's an opinion piece by a freelance writer who doesn't come up on any google search as connected with the Clinton campaign. How is this even relevant? If I link to an op-ed written by a random white supremacist, is that a ding against Trump?

[quash]

There's a larger, overarching theme behind this that's started to manifest itself through "activism" in where said groups claim that the universal rule of law isn't good enough for them (often times, more specifically, that it only works for those who they deem to be most privileged).

Even if you agree with this, surely you see reverting on the Sixth Amendment as an unworkable solution?

I haven't heard any serious talk about this in the US yet, but it does seem like we're headed there.

[Mischief Maker]

There's a larger, overarching theme behind this that's started to manifest itself through "activism" in where said groups claim that the universal rule of law isn't good enough for them (often times, more specifically, that it only works for those who they deem to be most privileged).

Even if you agree with this, surely you see reverting on the Sixth Amendment as an unworkable solution?

I haven't heard any serious talk about this in the US yet, but it does seem like we're headed there.

Really? There isn't any serious talk about undoing the sixth amendment, but you've decided we're headed there anyway, and your proof is a freelance op-ed by a militant feminist crank?

I'm beginning to understand the thought process behind most of your conspiracy theories.

[Specineff]

Since we didn't follow up on anything, Greg, Rancor, I propose we revisit this thread two years from now and see if things were as bad as either of us three said/felt/thought they would be, depending on who wins. In the meanwhile, peace.

Quash, same. Except it's because neither of us would acquiesce.

[Ed Oscuro]

There's a larger, overarching theme

The "larger, overarching theme" is that trials don't go to juries because people plea deal out.

And cripes, the article isn't even written about the USA. You might as well have mentioned this as Totally Convincing Evidence of Feminazism Exhibit #2.

I'm still wondering if quash has an obsession with making sure dudes don't go to jail for rape. I'd like to be wrong, it's creepy.

[quash]

Really? There isn't any serious talk about undoing the sixth amendment, but you've decided we're headed there anyway, and your proof is a freelance op-ed by a militant feminist crank?

I'm beginning to understand the thought process behind most of your conspiracy theories.

Stuff like this is testing the waters: seeing how far the envelope can be pushed before people start pushing back.

I'm glad it seems like we've found one thing we can all agree on, at least.

[quash]

I'm still wondering if quash has an obsession with making sure dudes don't go to jail for rape. I'd like to be wrong, it's creepy.

This is the kind of thought process that ousts you as being a useful idiot. It could have been about any given social subject asking for extrajudicial treatment.

[quash]

Here, have a "conspiracy theory" directly related to the election. I'll throw the remaining Bernie bros a bone with this one: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sdm ... GUVBo/edit

tl;dr: Primary aggregate state results are within one standard deviation when using paper ballots, whereas Hillary won by six standard deviations in states with electronic polling stations.

I should add that this is an ongoing study and that they are looking for feedback as to why the statistical models were so off. So if you've ever wanted to blast a hole through the sails of the vast right wing conspiracy, here's your chance.

[MOSQUITO FIGHTER]