+- Drunkard's Walk Forums (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums)
+-- Forum: General (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Politics and Other Fun (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Trump news the second (/showthread.php?tid=4020)
- Bob Schroeck - 11-24-2016
Well, Trump was swearing up and down that the system was rigged. He never actually said it was rigged in Clinton's favor...
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- Black Aeronaut - 11-24-2016
Be interesting if this is yet another case of Republicans stuffing the electronic ballot boxes. *Glares disdainfully in Diebold's direction*
- Bob Schroeck - 11-24-2016
I mean, it's not like there isn't precedent for the Republicans pulling any and all shenanigans they could to tilt elections in their favor -- in addition to the Diebold thing, there was the voter intimidation stuff in the 80s that got the Republican Party a thirty-year ban on even approaching polls on election day with "officers", and the recent gerrymandering cases where the Republican officials in charge openly boasted of how they successful they were at disenfranchising blacks and Democrats in their reports to their respective state legislatures. I will be the first to admit that Democratic officials are just as likely to be corrupt, on a one-by-one basis, as Republicans, but on a whole the Republicans are not just actively engaged in subverting the very fabric of the American democratic system but are open and proud of what they're doing, as if it's a virtue. It just disgusts me.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- DHBirr - 11-25-2016
Awww, da poor widdle Nazis got their feewings hurt....
Adding transcript:
Quote:International Business Times 23 November 2016
Alt-right fury after Donald Trump 'disavows and condemns' Nazi salutes James Tennent
Members of the alt-right movement in the USA have shown dismay at President-elect Donald Trump's pointed disavowal of the movement. During a contentious meeting with The New York Times on Tuesday 22 November, Trump replied "I disavow and condemn" when asked if he would condemn an alt-right meeting that took place in Washington DC over the previous weekend. There members gave Nazi salutes and shouted "Hail Trump".
A leader of the movement, Richard Spencer, told the Associated Press that he was "disappointed" by the president-elect's comments but said that he understood "politically and practically" why he had made them.
During the interview with editors, reporters and columnists at the Times, Trump said that he did not want to "energize" the group: "I'm not looking to energize them. I don't want to energize the group, and I disavow the group." Adding that he did not know where the group were in previous campaigns: "where they were for Romney and McCain and all of the other people that ran, so I just don't know, I had nothing to compare it to."
Trump also defended the appointment of Steve Bannon as White House chief strategist by saying: "I've known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right, or any of the things that we can, you know, the terms we can use, I wouldn't even think about hiring him."
Bannon previously ran the Breitbart news site which he called "the platform for the alt-right."
The Guardian noted that many alt-right users of sites such as Reddit and 4chan had expressed dismay at Trump's comments. One post on Reddit's r/altright message board asked whether other users felt "bamboozled by the Donald".
The top comment reads: "You are fooled if you think Trump was going to give us some sort of permission slip to start cleansing America. He isn't our 'man on a white horse'."
Many of the other comments questioned whether Trump was alt-right in the first place. "Donald isn't alt-right, never was. He's a hell of a step in the right direction though." read one. Another said that Trump did not need to express support for the group: "We support him because he agrees with us on important policy goals, not because he flatters us."
Though a reply to that comment seemed more worried, asking whether there are "any clear examples that he's still with us".
Edit: No, no; I shouldn't laugh. It's cruel of me to mock the virtue-challenged like this.
-----
Big Brother is watching you. And damn, you are so bloody BORING.
- robkelk - 11-25-2016
DHBirr Wrote:... It's cruel of me to mock the virtue-challenged like this.Well, then how should we mock them?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- Black Aeronaut - 11-26-2016
DHBirr: Website does not allow ad blockers.
- Bob Schroeck - 11-28-2016
![[Image: 273263619148ca590a8ebe06d6e4b1e4d8706668.png]](http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumimportfiles/273263619148ca590a8ebe06d6e4b1e4d8706668.png)
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- Labster - 11-28-2016
Welp, apparently Trump thinks he won the popular vote, and there were millions of fraudulent ballots cast in this election. Even mentioned California by name. I'm sure in four years he'll be able to eliminate all of the people who voted against him, one way or another. Unless we stand up and fight now.
I haven't said much since the election, but that's mainly because I was figuring out what to do. I was happy enough being in the silent majority that voted for Hillary because I believe that the arc of history was bending towards social justice, ever so slowly. But now I can see I was lying to myself. The only thing left we have to do is fight for our country, our civil rights, and our freedom. We can no longer afford to be silent. My mother has decided to become a community organizer, and I'm going to end up helping out.
So I urge you all to do something. Subscribe to a newspaper, to keep the free press going -- that's our first line of defense. Write letters to congressmen and newspapers. Send money to causes you believe in. Tell all of your friends to get out and fight. Be willing to stand up to your friends that disagree with you -- we've spent too long letting conservatives be the loudmouths. Don't be afraid to get out in the streets. We cannot win on logic alone; we must have passion.
Today, the President-elect called my vote fraudulent. Tomorrow, it could be you.
-- ∇×V
- robkelk - 11-28-2016
In case there is still some idea of exercising the option that's mentioned so many times in elections: Canada does not currently have the infrastructure to accept half the population of the USA on a long-term basis. Sure, we'll happily take a few thousand of your best and brightest, but we can't take you all and taking your best and brightest means those of you who we wouldn't take would be worse off.
So, yes, please work things out amongst yourselves. Make sure that unconstitutional acts don't become law; crowdfund for the lawyers' fees, if necessary. Help the refugees you've accepted - the poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to be free - get through the winter, and the next three winters after that. Teach your children about the rule of law, and that the intent is that the same law applies to the beggar and to the President.
And if you want scrutineers for your next election, just ask. Elections Canada has experience with that.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- ordnance11 - 11-28-2016
Quote:robkelk wrote:Canada took loyalists in the aftermath of the American Revolution. You guys can take in another 150 million or so. Okay maybe not that much. but it will be those who can afford to move in.
In case there is still some idea of exercising the option that's mentioned so many times in elections: Canada does not currently have the infrastructure to accept half the population of the USA on a long-term basis. Sure, we'll happily take a few thousand of your best and brightest, but we can't take you all and taking your best and brightest means those of you who we wouldn't take would be worse off.
So, yes, please work things out amongst yourselves. Make sure that unconstitutional acts don't become law; crowdfund for the lawyers' fees, if necessary. Help the refugees you've accepted - the poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to be free - get through the winter, and the next three winters after that. Teach your children about the rule of law, and that the intent is that the same law applies to the beggar and to the President.
And if you want scrutineers for your next election, just ask. Elections Canada has experience with that.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
- Bob Schroeck - 11-28-2016
Trump's gold-plated ego is on display again with his claims about voter fraud over the last few days. He can't bear to have lost anything, even if he won the race. I'm sure we'll be seeing this pattern over and over again for the next four years -- the only votes, competitions or comparisons that aren't rigged are the ones he wins.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- Labster - 11-28-2016
Rob, I guess a more appropriate question would be: Would Canada be willing to accept an additional 39 million people in the form of an additional province? I realize that this would more than double the population of Canadians. Trump has expressed admiration for Brexit, so I'm sure he'll have no problem with Calexit. Apparently Oregon will consider the same.
Also as a former poll worker I have no problem with scrutineers. I never actually saw one, because elections here are designed to be inclusive and verifyable, but the more the merrier.
-- ∇×V
- robkelk - 11-29-2016
vorticity Wrote:Rob, I guess a more appropriate question would be: Would Canada be willing to accept an additional 39 million people in the form of an additional province? I realize that this would more than double the population of Canadians. Trump has expressed admiration for Brexit, so I'm sure he'll have no problem with %[link=http://www.yescalifornia.org/]Calexit]. Apparently Oregon will consider the same.
...
Oh, that's an interesting question.
Despite the number of times that both sides have explored the idea, we've never offered the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_and_Caicos_Islands]Turks and Caicos Islands status as a Canadian province, despite both them and Canada having the same head of state. On the other hand, we've never had both sides explore the idea at the same time, and there's a lot of Caribbean between Canada and the Turks and Caicos.
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... _of_Canada]Wikipedia says there's been some interest in the past (at different times) from Vermont, Maine, and parts of Minnesota seceding from the USA and joining Canada. Nothing's ever come of those initiatives, either.
However, the communities of the US "left coast" would be a good fit for Canadian values... and California has money.
Magic 8-Ball says "Reply Hazy - Ask Again"
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- robkelk - 11-29-2016
ordnance11 Wrote:Canada took loyalists in the aftermath of the American Revolution. You guys can take in another 150 million or so. Okay maybe not that much. but it will be those who can afford to move in.Well, sure - if you don't mind building cities from scratch, the way the United Empire Loyalists did.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- Rajvik - 11-29-2016
Maybe this is sour grapes, and if so, tough. If the south was not allowed to leave the Union over the election of Lincoln, then the left coast can suck it up as well. If the people don't like it they have every ability to sell their properties and leave, but the states have to stay.
- Rajvik - 11-29-2016
Deleted because phone screwed up
- robkelk - 11-29-2016
Well, it was Lincoln who insisted on the USA not dividing. Has Trump said anything about this, one way or the other?
Oh... One possible stumbling block: Where does California get its fresh water from?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- Labster - 11-29-2016
I'm afraid it's not sour grapes. Yesterday, the president-elect said that my vote was fraudulent, along with millions of my fellow Californians, without a shred of evidence. This is not the behavior of a U.S. President, this is the the behavior of a dictator. Donald Trump is a deeply unpatriotic man. We'll all have to see how long our patriotism lasts in the face of that.
There's also no reason to say that Calexit would be a violent removal, when it can approved with a vote of Congress. So far as the water situation in California, it gets a share of the Colorado River water which is used extensively in the Imperial Valley (the southeast tip), but most sources are entirely in-state. There's no real reason that the existing Colorado relationship can't continue. I think the more worrying sticking point would be the US Navy base at San Diego -- it's hard to see the U.S. giving that up. We'd probably need to lease it to the U.S. in a Guantanamo Bay-style relationship. We could have our own Navy based at the SF Bay.
Note that all of this is just conjecture on my part as I'm not an advocate for Calexit yet, but it's something to think about.
-- ∇×V
- Bob Schroeck - 11-29-2016
Meanwhile, I find myself amused by the massive cognitive dissonance displayed by Trump, who with one breath complains that there was massive voter fraud denying him his proper majority, and with another lambastes any attempt at actually investigating and recounting those votes as a "scam". I cannot help but be reminded of the old Infocom Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy game, where it was necessary at one point to remove one's common sense entirely, so that the player could possess "Tea" and "No Tea" simultaneously.
It really does seem like Trump is outraged at the idea that someone -- anyone -- didn't vote for him. Is he so insecure that the only result he will accept as legitimate is unanimity? I know I joked about it before the election, but it really seems all the more likely now that one of his first actions as President will be to try to fire the American People, and hire a new American People who worships him properly.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- DHBirr - 11-30-2016
Doublethink.
Quote:The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.— George Orwell, 1984
Sounds awfully reminiscent, doesn't it?
-----
Big Brother is watching you. And damn, you are so bloody BORING.
- Black Aeronaut - 11-30-2016
Calling it right now. Trump has dementia and no one's really caught on to it yet... or people have caught on to it, but they're trying to keep a tight lid on it.
- ordnance11 - 11-30-2016
Quote:Black Aeronaut wrote:So who's running the country then?
Calling it right now. Trump has dementia and no one's really caught on to it yet... or people have caught on to it, but they're trying to keep a tight lid on it.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
- robkelk - 11-30-2016
ordnance11 Wrote:When the President is medically unable to carry out the duties of the position, the Vice-President is supposed to take over. (I recall that happening when one or the other of the Bushes needed surgery.)Black Aeronaut Wrote:Calling it right now. Trump has dementia and no one's really caught on to it yet... or people have caught on to it, but they're trying to keep a tight lid on it.So who's running the country then?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- ordnance11 - 11-30-2016
Quote:robkelk wrote:Or a cabal runs it in his name..see Woodrow Wilson.Quote:ordnance11 wrote:When the President is medically unable to carry out the duties of the position, the Vice-President is supposed to take over. (I recall that happening when one or the other of the Bushes needed surgery.)Quote:Black Aeronaut wrote:So who's running the country then?
Calling it right now. Trump has dementia and no one's really caught on to it yet... or people have caught on to it, but they're trying to keep a tight lid on it.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
- robkelk - 11-30-2016
The Internet Archive has announced plans to move copy to Canada:
Quote:On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change. It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change.
For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a Web that may face greater restrictions.
It means serving patrons in a world in which government surveillance is not going away; indeed it looks like it will increase.
Announcement:
http://blog.archive.org/2016/11/29/hel ... d-private/
Reporting:
http://fortune.com/2016/11/29/internet- ... ald-trump/
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/11/antic ... in-canada/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/29 ... oid_trump/
and dozens more
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012