Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

obi wan ken boni

Last minute call for the 2016 presidential election to win the most IDM 2016.

I expect nothing but noise and venetian snares trashcan beats on that one.

2016 is the florida of years

  On 11/1/2016 at 8:00 AM, ignatius said:

2016 is the florida of years

lol accurate

  On 11/1/2016 at 8:00 AM, ignatius said:

2016 is the florida of years

one more week until this shitshow of an election is over, right?

  On 11/1/2016 at 6:01 AM, Alcofribas said:

 

3) Russia's precise motivations and intentions are unknown and thus "supposition" is par for course. Indeed, it's precisely what you resort to when you argue that the best way for Russia to achieve its perceived ends would be to work to elect trump; your "supposition" isn't "backed up" by anything. We went over this recently though and nothing new has been brought to the table here imo and in any case the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, although I find one more likely.

 

call this supposition, but it would be hard to dispute that, from putin's point of view, it is not in russia's interest for the united states to be stronger. he sees that we could take the senate and thereby appoint another 1-3 supreme court justices who might overturn citizens united. does putin not see that removing much of the money from politics would make the functioning of government better, and the country stronger?

  On 11/1/2016 at 12:57 PM, triachus said:

one more week until this shitshow of an election is over, right?

Aghhhhhahahaha if you think this shit will be over on Nov 8 keep dreaming, the next 4 years are gonna be a bigger shitshow

I'm pretty sure it's shitshow from here on out

Breaking: FBI investigating everybody for everything

240 years is old for a country

this is what it looks like

poor information vetting is part of the problem

the founding fathers dreaded the inevitability of political parties

people take for granted that things tend to work themselves out, but if you look at history, sooner or later it all goes to shit, everywhere.

  On 11/1/2016 at 6:01 AM, Alcofribas said:

Yes, the FBI claims so far there's no conclusive or direct link. I posted this in response to a motherjones article published days before the election in which an anonymous source claims to have years of dirt on trump/putin. between the two articles the one you're arguing about seems decidedly more sober and reasonable.

No, the question is 'is there any direct link between the trump campaign and the russians?', the answer from them seems to be 'we're investigating and so far haven't found anything', that doesn't count as fully answering the question. It still remains an open question, with enough evidence to suggest they keep looking.

  Quote

Russia's precise motivations and intentions are unknown and thus "supposition" is par for course. Indeed, it's precisely what you resort to when you argue that the best way for Russia to achieve its perceived ends would be to work to elect trump; your "supposition" isn't "backed up" by anything. We went over this recently though and nothing new has been brought to the table here imo and in any case the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, although I find one more likely.

I never suggested otherwise, why is your supposition any more valid than mine? You seem to be discounting the possibility, or at least think it's unlikely, if it turned out there was some form of collusion going on it would really be one of the least surprising things ever.

  On 11/1/2016 at 12:57 PM, triachus said:

one more week until this shitshow of an election is over, right?

yep, the next election cycle will probably start a couple of weeks later, they seem to be getting longer each time. there's also the very real chance of trump dragging it out through the courts for months afterwards. so strap yourself in, it'll be a long and annoying ride.

Y'all saw this, right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-donna-brazile-as-pundit-over-wikileaks-revelations/2016/10/31/2f1c6abc-9f92-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html

  On 11/1/2016 at 3:05 PM, caze said:

 

  On 11/1/2016 at 6:01 AM, Alcofribas said:

Yes, the FBI claims so far there's no conclusive or direct link. I posted this in response to a motherjones article published days before the election in which an anonymous source claims to have years of dirt on trump/putin. between the two articles the one you're arguing about seems decidedly more sober and reasonable.

No, the question is 'is there any direct link between the trump campaign and the russians?', the answer from them seems to be 'we're investigating and so far haven't found anything', that doesn't count as fully answering the question. It still remains an open question, with enough evidence to suggest they keep looking.

 

  Quote

Russia's precise motivations and intentions are unknown and thus "supposition" is par for course. Indeed, it's precisely what you resort to when you argue that the best way for Russia to achieve its perceived ends would be to work to elect trump; your "supposition" isn't "backed up" by anything. We went over this recently though and nothing new has been brought to the table here imo and in any case the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, although I find one more likely.

I never suggested otherwise, why is your supposition any more valid than mine? You seem to be discounting the possibility, or at least think it's unlikely, if it turned out there was some form of collusion going on it would really be one of the least surprising things ever.

Unsurprisingly, you're having another argument with yourself here, maybe go smash that escape key for a few hours.

1) No one said there is a conclusive answer about the Russia issue. The fbi did say they haven't established anything conclusive yet or found evidence of a direct link after months of multiple investigations. i think it's incredibly important to insist upon actual proof and evidence for these sorts of things and I posted that article in response to yet another speculative article with info by secret sources.

2) My position isn't more valid than yours, quit crying. I find the interpretation I provided more likely, not more valid. Given the evidence we actually have i lean toward the intererpretation that Russia's involvement is more posturing to the world and trolling the election to make the U.S. look foolish and weak. You seem to lean toward thinking they were more specifically trying to elect trump in collusion with his campaign. Your position requires a greater burden of proof, however, which you have certainly not provided.

real self argument hours yo who up?? smash dat fucking escape key

  On 11/1/2016 at 3:53 PM, Alcofribas said:

Unsurprisingly, you're having another argument with yourself here, maybe go smash that escape key for a few hours.

 

1) No one said there is a conclusive answer about the Russia issue. The fbi did say they haven't established anything conclusive yet or found evidence of a direct link after months of multiple investigations. i think it's incredibly important to insist upon actual proof and evidence for these sorts of things and I posted that article in response to yet another speculative article with info by secret sources.

 

2) My position isn't more valid than yours, quit crying. I find the interpretation I provided more likely, not more valid. Given the evidence we actually have i lean toward the intererpretation that Russia's involvement is more posturing to the world and trolling the election to make the U.S. look foolish and weak. You seem to lean toward thinking they were more specifically trying to elect trump in collusion with his campaign. Your position requires a greater burden of proof, however, which you have certainly not provided.

 

Who said anything about not insisting on evidence?

I definitely don't think your interpretation is more likely, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not backed up by any actual facts. The relatively levels of proof required say nothing about the likelihood of either proposition. It's far more likely he would want a Trump presidency because it would clearly serve his interests more (just for Trump's position on NATO if nothing else), and even if he fails he still gets plenty of benefit from meddling, so why not try? Of course just because he'd want to doesn't mean they actually have had direct connections, but I never claimed they definitely did, just that I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if they did.

  On 11/1/2016 at 2:21 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

I'm pretty sure it's shitshow from here on out

 

Breaking: FBI investigating everybody for everything

aye it

feels like it's gonna be another Brexit vote - slim difference between sides and everyone on the winning side acting like everything is sorted after the vote. Murka is gonna need the same introspection and national conversation that UK does, we are very divided societies.

I think the one optimistic lesson from this election is that things have probably been roughly this corrupt and ugly forever (y'know, give or take) but we're actually just getting good at uncovering it.

  On 11/1/2016 at 4:13 PM, caze said:

I definitely don't think your interpretation is more likely, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not backed up by any actual facts. The relatively levels of proof required say nothing about the likelihood of either proposition.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I'm no Rhodes Scholar but colluding with a high profile frienemy superpower while under the eyes of the secret service, media, etc. would require orchestrating a conspiracy of the highest order.

OTOH trolling the election to make the U.S. look foolish and weak requires no such conspiracy, just a couple of 400-lb Sergeis with haxxor skills.

Something about the simplest explanation being the most likely one

  On 11/1/2016 at 4:46 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I'm no Rhodes Scholar but colluding with a high profile frienemy superpower while under the eyes of the secret service, media, etc. would require orchestrating a conspiracy of the highest order.

No it wouldn't, at it's simplest it would require two or three people, a burner phone, and some commercial encrypted communication software. The more I read about this server the less likely it seems to be in any way relevant though.

Well, Occam's Razor doesn't necessarily point ones towards the truth. The most parsimonious explanation is not always the correct one. Anomalies are part of reality, so appeals to probability can lead one astray.

The real story here is that Trump is going to become potus and it's going to be one hell of a shitshow.

A trump win still isn't very likely thankfully.