Wednesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, November 23. 2016

Image via Ace

Giving thanks for the invisible hand of strangers, spontaneous order, kaleidoscopic market energy & no turkey czars

Renewed Circus Maximus reopens after 6 years

The Factory of Fakes - How a workshop uses digital technology to craft perfect copies of imperilled art.

Obama Education Secretary John B. King Calls for End to Paddling in Schools

Paddling in schools? Bring it back.

William & Mary Offers ‘Thanksgiving Toolkit’ for Sensitive Students

How come Trump voters do not get toolkits for dealing with their moonbat relatives?

Watching the Snowflakes Melt

But Don’t Call Them Hysterical

The Trump-Climate Freakout

Possibly scariest interview with college Social Justice Warrior I’ve ever seen

University Bullied Students to Change 'America' Theme Party Because Trump Won - America party 'provides an opportunity for students to dress or behave in a way that offends or oppresses others.'

How about a Cuba-themed party?

There is great irony in the sheer hate from those who whine about Trump being hateful.

VDH: Who Are Wise, Who Not?

Manhattan doesn't love The Donald anymore

After 30 years of love and admiration, a sudden divorce

Green Incoherence: Reaching Out to the Deplorables

The trouble with Keith Ellison

Liberals Are Freaking Out Over The Possibility Of Questioning “High Risk” Immigrants

Every immigrant to the US should make legal application, and be vetted, interrogated, and given probationary status. That's normal everywhere. Basically, a would-be immigrant is applying for membership.

Trump is right: Let’s finally move on from the Clintons

Dem Lawmaker: We Are a Permanent Minority – Not a National Party, We Are a Coastal Party

Jeff Sessions May "Prosecute" Sanctuary Cities That Don't Obey Federal Law

Illegal immigrants pose as families, tell tales of woe to gain entry to U.S.

Illegal Immigrants Set Record By Using Children As Deportation Shields

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF IMMIGRATION

Academics are dangerously racist

Do red state Americans and blue state Americans live in the same country anymore?

America has many more than two subcultures

Democrats’ Answer Is Always the Same: Move More Left - Nearly
every time the Democrats face a crisis, their answer is the same—move
left. This time, they’re about to fall off the edge.

Delusional

Belmont Club on elections:

In socialism's 1930s heyday cadres were exhorted to bear on their shoulders the task of murder, genocide, deceit etc -- so that the masses might be happy in their simple hopes for a Worker's Paradise. The ones in the know knew the earthly paradise would never come. The Grand Inquisitor wore Chekist uniform but his function was otherwise the same. In 2016 the Inquisitors no longer shoot people but they still kept the secret. The reason the liberal project will never perform an autopsy on itself is because that would reveal there's no there there. It's the pretend that counts. The big secret the Left never wants to face is there's no "arc of history" they control.

Still there are always enough people who would rather be ruled by Grand Inquisitors than bear the burden of freedom; enough to keep a leftist project alive indefinitely. Life in a community is simple. And perhaps they are on the correct side after all. There may be nothing beyond the Big Crunch and the Big Pretend. So let's pretend.

I have never met a lib who could tell me when the Progressive Project of government expansion could be considered completed

Trump needs to stop denouncing nutcases every time the media heads to the fainting couches

Time for him to rise above. But can he? He's a street-fighting man like Obama wanted to be

MEDIA MOGULS COMPLAIN ABOUT MEETING WITH TRUMP, GET SPANKED BY . . . GLENN GREENWALD?

A Third of Germans Report Feeling ‘Like A Stranger In My Own Country’

A Tiny Minority of a Million Muslims in America

Muslim Refugees: "We Must Have More Children than the Christians Because it’s the Only Way We Can Destroy Them Here.’”

The UK has to accept not being special to the US

World Leaders Gather to Worry About Trump

Migrants Burn Down German Refugee Center After Camp Runs Out of Nutella and Gummy Bears

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 04:52 | Comments (69) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Obama Education Secretary John B. King Calls for End to Paddling in Schools. I'll buy in if rowing and sailing are included. It's time to stop stirring up the water. It scares the fish and encourages ugly algae to grow.

#1 BillH on 2016-11-23 09:32 (Reply)

Re: Trump is right: Let’s finally move on from the Clintons

I am very disappointed that Trump is letting Hillary skate. There is easily enough evidence of her and her staff breaking several laws to warrant a grand jury. Whether the grand jury votes to indict would be another matter but we have a system where those who break the law are supposed to face justice regardless of their station. In fact, draining the swamp was one of Trump's strongest appeals and the biggest part of the swamp is those who are in power or have been in power are usually let off the hook.

I don't think Ford's pardoning of Nixon is equivalent. Washington was consumed with getting Nixon to the point that nothing else was getting done. Nixon had no direct involvement in the break in of the DNC headquarters, and he had resigned from the presidency. By contrast, Hillary had direct involvement in her alleged crimes and now the only consequences of her actions is that she will have less leverage for graft. Also, in the Nixon case, his lieutenants who participated in the break in were brought to justice (Haldeman and Ehrlichman were convicted of conspiracy, there were other convictions as well), but in the Clinton case, everybody is presumably off the hook.

I'm tired of Clinton scandals like everybody else, but one reason we've kept having them is that they've never been fully brought to account for what they've done. We probably won't hear nearly as much from them going forward but I'd rather justice take its course.

#2 mudbug on 2016-11-23 10:19 (Reply)

mudbug: There is easily enough evidence of her and her staff breaking several laws to warrant a grand jury.

No.

mudbug: we have a system where those who break the law are supposed to face justice regardless of their station.

Sure. However, it's not for the president to decide, even though he 'promised' he would. And it's certainly not for the mob shouting "Lock her up!"

#2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 11:15 (Reply)

Z: No.

Yes. Several former prosecutors have said they would likely prosecute her.

Z: Sure. However, it's not for the president to decide, even though he 'promised' he would. And it's certainly not for the mob shouting "Lock her up!"

You are right that it's not for the president to decide nor is it a mob. I never said it was. It's for the Attorney General who serves at the pleasure of the President. Certainly the President can suggest to the AG to look into something or look the other way as Obama implicitly said of so many things over the past eight years.

#2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-11-23 12:37 (Reply)

mudbug: Several former prosecutors have said they would likely prosecute her.

Most independent legal analysts said the FBI would recommend against bringing charges due to lack of intent, and that is exactly what happened.

mudbug: It's for the Attorney General who serves at the pleasure of the President.

And with the advice and consent of the Senate. It's a quaint tradition in the U.S. for the Attorney General to exercise independence from the President. But so many quaint traditions have been broken, what's one more?

QUOTE:

Broken lines, broken strings
Broken threads, broken springs
Broken idols, broken heads
People sleeping in broken beds
Ain’t no use jiving
Ain’t no use joking
Everything is broken

#2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 12:42 (Reply)

mudbug: Several former prosecutors have said they would likely prosecute her.

z: Most independent legal analysts said

Notice that you didn't address Mudbug's point, rather you threw out a red-herring. You don't post anything that isn't fallacious.

Oh, and "No", really isn't a legitimate response. Remember?

As for the actual issue, intent isn't the issue and anyone who has reviewed even the evidence that's publicly available recognizes that there is plenty to move forward with.

#2.1.1.1.1 DrTorch on 2016-11-23 12:57 (Reply)

DrTorch: Notice that you didn't address Mudbug's point, rather you threw out a red-herring.

We did address it. He pointed to "some". We pointed to "most". And we pointed out that "most" were correct. The FBI recommended against bringing charges.

DrTorch: As for the actual issue, intent isn't the issue

Intent is required to bring criminal charges.

DrTorch: and anyone who has reviewed even the evidence that's publicly available recognizes that there is plenty to move forward with.

Anyone, except the team of career FBI investigators who unanimously determined there was no cause of action.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 13:02 (Reply)

US Attorneys or, in this case the USAG, not the FBI, decides on what charges to file.

holy shit, get your facts straight, you're an embarrassment to debate here.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Will Bithers on 2016-11-23 13:48 (Reply)

Will Bithers: US Attorneys or, in this case the USAG, not the FBI, decides on what charges to file.

The FBI team of career investigators unanimously recommended against charges. It would be unusual, to say the least, for the Attorney General to file charges in such a circumstance.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 14:22 (Reply)

no, asshat, the FBI doesn't file charges, the prosecutor does approved by a committee and in cases like this, approved by the head of the DOJ. stop watching TV police dramas to get your info. political appointees won't approve charges against the hildabeest? holy shit, what a surprise.

you know nothing about how this shit works. nothing.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Will Bithers on 2016-11-23 15:11 (Reply)

Will Bithers: the FBI doesn't file charges

You may want to read our comments before going on your tirade.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-24 09:28 (Reply)

Z: Most independent legal analysts said the FBI would recommend against bringing charges due to lack of intent, and that is exactly what happened.

Intent is not necessary to prosecute against the statute. Intent isn't mentioned on purpose because it is meant to insure that sensitive material is handled properly or there were consequences. Comey even mentioned that there would be consequences if anybody in the FBI did what Hillary had done. The fact that she lied repeatedly about it is evidence that she knew it was wrong (which in any case is evidence of intent you and your "legal analysts" feel is so important).

Z: And with the advice and consent of the Senate. It's a quaint tradition in the U.S. for the Attorney General to exercise independence from the President. But so many quaint traditions have been broken, what's one more?

Thanks for making my point.

#2.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2016-11-23 13:48 (Reply)

mudbug: Intent is not necessary to prosecute against the statute.

Assuming you are referring to the Espionage Act, the Supreme Court ruled in Gorin v. United States, that scienter and bad faith must be present.

mudbug: Comey even mentioned that there would be consequences if anybody in the FBI did what Hillary had done.

Yes, Comey said they would be subject to administrative punishment, but not criminal sanction.

mudbug: The fact that she lied repeatedly about it is evidence that she knew it was wrong

The FBI said there was no evidence Clinton lied to the investigators.

mudbug: Thanks for making my point.

If your point is that Clinton should be held to the same standard of law as everyone else, then we agree, as does Comey.

Comey: {Charging Clinton} “would be treating somebody differently because of their celebrity status or because of some other factor that doesn’t matter. We have to treat people, the bedrock of our system of justice, we have to treat people fairly. We treat them the same based on their conduct.”

#2.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 14:28 (Reply)

Z: Assuming you are referring to the Espionage Act, the Supreme Court ruled in Gorin v. United States, that scienter and bad faith must be present.

That doesn't explain why people are in jail who showed no evidence of bad faith. The Supreme Court has shown they can read whatever they want to in a statute whether it's in the statute or not.

Z: The FBI said there was no evidence Clinton lied to the investigators.

Well, we don't really know was asked since there were no recording devices during her interview nor were there any transcripts (very unusual for the FBI). I'm referring only to what she said in public that was a lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-11-23 14:52 (Reply)

mudbug: That doesn't explain why people are in jail who showed no evidence of bad faith.

You forgot the examples.

mudbug: I'm referring only to what she said in public that was a lie:

What your video shows is that Clinton made factually inaccurate statements, not that she lied.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-24 09:08 (Reply)

He's not letting Hillary 'skate.' Do I need to remind everyone that the president does not sic the Justice Department on his enemies? Only Obama does that.

I want the DOJ to go back to being a department that makes its own decisions without government influence based on information gathered by the FBI, which is also supposed to be absent of government influence.

This was the perfectly right answer for Trump to give: no, I personally will not go after Clinton.

However, I will remind you that the FBI in 5 different cities, plus the IRS are investigating the Clinton Foundation. This investigation will continue until, at some point, information is provided to the Justice Department and decisions are made about how to proceed. This has nothing to do with Trump. This will be on Sessions and his DOJ.

Let's all calm down, shall we? The president does not single people out for attack.

#2.2 MissT on 2016-11-23 11:48 (Reply)

MissT: Do I need to remind everyone that the president does not sic the Justice Department on his enemies?

Nevertheless, Trump said he would, leading chants of "Lock her up!"

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 12:04 (Reply)

His analysis of what Clinton did was correct, as was his claim that she should be in jail. There's nothing different there. He never had, as the president, the authority to personally go after her.

Why people thought any differently, I am not sure. Probably because Obama DID use the DOJ as an arm of the White House to do his bidding.

Let's go back to what the DOJ is supposed to do, shall we?

#2.2.1.1 MissT on 2016-11-23 12:59 (Reply)

MissT: He never had, as the president, the authority to personally go after her. Why people thought any differently, I am not sure.

Then you are blind to the facts. Trump said if he were president, she would be in jail. You can't get more plain than that.

#2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 14:30 (Reply)

Whether or not they prosecute her, we know from the Obama administration's own statements she compromised the entire national security of the U.S. and we now know that Putin and probably lots of other folks have all of our communications. (Could be intentional "fake news" from the Obama administration to try swing the election to Hillary, claiming the Russians were manipulating the emails, but the fact is Obama's security apparatchiks have said our secured communications systems are totally compromised and taken by Russian hacking.) Which probably is why Putin laughs at our incompetent foreign policy. In the old days that certainly was enough to get you life imprisonment if not capital punishment. We will see whether they face the consequences of their actions.

#2.3 Jim on 2016-11-23 13:43 (Reply)

Jim: Whether or not they prosecute her, we know from the Obama administration's own statements she compromised the entire national security of the U.S.

Some classified information was transmitted on Clinton's server. There's no evidence the server was hacked, but it remains a possibility.

Jim: and we now know that Putin and probably lots of other folks have all of our communications.

If they have "all" of U.S. communications, then you have a much bigger problem than Clinton's server. The vast majority of U.S. intelligence was never on the server.

Jim: (Could be intentional "fake news" from the Obama administration to try swing the election to Hillary, claiming the Russians were manipulating the emails

Multiple independent cyber-investigatory firms have reached the same conclusion.

#2.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 14:33 (Reply)

I don't know that Hilarity will skate. Plenty of people can go after her. The world does seem a tad more safe now with a grown-up due to govern. The Zero can go on to his role in Hollywood, where he wanted to be from the start. Never, never, never again should we elect such a loser.

#2.4 jma on 2016-11-24 10:04 (Reply)

re Trump is right: Let’s finally move on from the Clintons

Broken promise/lie number one.

If Trump believes that why did he continually say HRC belonged in jail during the campaign?

Here we go again. Trump is 'reaching across the aisle' to a group of people who hate his guts and will never vote for him. We have seen this movie before. It never works and won't this time either.

Memo to Trump: You should be pleasing the people who carried you to the White House or they won't be around when you need them.

It seems Trump's true loyalty is to the ruling class.

#3 feeblemind on 2016-11-23 10:20 (Reply)

Did he promise? Not sure. Did say she belonged in jail

He is right on both counts. The distraction would be too much - he has more important things to worry about.

#3.1 bd on 2016-11-23 11:59 (Reply)

Donald Trump in response to chants of Lock her up!: "You know what. I'm starting to agree with you."

Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton: "if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation"

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 12:12 (Reply)

"Because you'd be in jail."

So you have a U.S. presidential candidate for a major political party saying he would have his political opponent thrown in jail.

#3.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 12:34 (Reply)

You have a very fertile imagination to believe that he would have her thrown in jail without due process.

#3.1.2.1 mudbug on 2016-11-23 13:51 (Reply)

Trump claimed Clinton would be in jail if he were president. You can't get much more plain than that.

#3.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 14:35 (Reply)

that's part of the reason he won, you loser.

#3.1.2.1.1.1 Will Bithers on 2016-11-23 14:36 (Reply)

Will Bithers: that's part of the reason he won

That's right. For political advantage, Trump led chants for locking up his political opponent.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 14:50 (Reply)

deal with it, loser.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Will Bithers on 2016-11-23 15:41 (Reply)

Will Bithers: deal with it

Just pointing to the facts. Trump led chants for locking up his political opponent, said if he were president, she would be in jail.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-24 09:30 (Reply)

Meaning he would support prosecuting her and that in his opinion she was obviously guilty. Sigh...

#3.1.2.1.1.2 mudbug on 2016-11-23 14:55 (Reply)

mudbug: Meaning he would support prosecuting her and that in his opinion she was obviously guilty.

That's right. His crowds chanted "Lock her up!" He promised to act as judge and jury.

#3.1.2.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-24 09:10 (Reply)

The Clintons?

Who they?

#3.2 Let's Move On on 2016-11-23 12:00 (Reply)

Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, 42nd President of the United States. Known for a period of relative peace and prosperity.

Hillary Clinton, First Lady, Senator from New York, Secretary of State. Known for work on passing the Children's Health Insurance Program.

#3.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 14:38 (Reply)

This reminds me of what got drummed into you as school children about the Marcoses:

Q: What are Ferdinand Marcos' three most important titles?

A: President, Prime Minister, and Commander in Chief.

Q: What are Imelda Marcos' three most important tiutles?

A: First Lady, Mayor of Manila, and Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary.

#3.2.1.1 Jim on 2016-11-23 20:28 (Reply)

Ferdinand Marcos, President of the Philippines, kleptocrat. Known for his corruption and brutality.

Imelda Marcos, First Lady of the Philippines, kleptocrat. Known for living extravagantly on plundered wealth.

#3.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-24 10:06 (Reply)

Exactly my point.

Some of us have seen the Clintons before.

#3.2.1.1.1.1 Jim on 2016-11-24 14:57 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Dem Lawmaker: We Are a Permanent Minority – Not a National Party, We Are a Coastal Party

Clinton won more votes than Trump, so that is a bit of an overstatement. However, there are structural reasons why Democrats have to win more than a bare majority to reach parity with Republicans, including the Electoral College, the small state advantage in the Senate, gerrymandering of House districts, Republican efforts to limit the franchise, and the concentration of Democrats in urban areas.

#4 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 11:41 (Reply)

I think you missed his point. He said they are a 'coastal party' as is shown in the map following the election. You can see if very clearly. And, yes, that does put the Democrat party in the 'minority' of ideas...most of the country rejected Democrats. It has nothing to do with gerrymandering. You can see the counties that went 'red' versus those that went 'blue.' Very, very few counties are blue. Why is that? It is because, as this Democrat rightly pointed out, the Democrat Party is pushing an agenda that does not appeal to a broad cross-section of Americans. And that is a problem.

I am fine with you not agreeing with this, Zachriel, as it will further shrink the Democrat Party if they continue down this path. Go for it.

#4.1 MissT on 2016-11-23 11:52 (Reply)

Coastal urban party is not good enough. It's a big country, lots of good people are neither coastal nor urban.

#4.1.1 bd on 2016-11-23 12:02 (Reply)

MissT: He said they are a 'coastal party' as is shown in the map following the election.

He also said Democrats were a minority party.

MissT: most of the country rejected Democrats.

Clinton won more votes than Trump.

MissT: It has nothing to do with gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is certainly part of the equation, that and clustering of Democrats in urban areas. In order to win a majority of the House, for instance, they probably need to win at least 54% of the vote for House seats. As for the presidential election, due to the Electoral College, voters in Wyoming have 3½ times the influence as voters in California.

#4.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 12:16 (Reply)

Under Mr. Obama, Democrats have lost 13 net Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, a whopping 913 state legislature seats and 30 state legislature chambers, according to analysis from the Washington Post.

==========================

You can't gerrymander a state. Everything you are complaining about flows from the fact that the Democrats have chosen a strategy that limits their competitiveness across broad reaches of the country in favor of one that protects their control of high population urban areas.

#4.1.2.1 Christopher B on 2016-11-23 12:29 (Reply)

Christopher B: Under Mr. Obama, Democrats have lost 13 net Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, a whopping 913 state legislature seats and 30 state legislature chambers, according to analysis from the Washington Post.

Sure. That doesn't mean Democrats are a minority party.

Christopher B: Everything you are complaining about flows from the fact that the Democrats have chosen a strategy that limits their competitiveness across broad reaches of the country in favor of one that protects their control of high population urban areas.

To some extent. That doesn't mean they represent a minority though or that "most of the country rejected Democrats; that is, unless you think rural voters are intrinsically worth more than urban voters.

#4.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 12:37 (Reply)

I was responding to your contention

there are structural reasons why Democrats have to win more than a bare majority to reach parity with Republicans, including the Electoral College, the small state advantage in the Senate, gerrymandering of House districts, Republican efforts to limit the franchise, and the concentration of Democrats in urban areas.

It would appear that the Democrats have been pursuing a strategy that limits their appeal to specific constituencies. There is no structural reason that, to pick an example, South Dakota should be represented by three Republicans in Congress since from 1986 to 2004 a major Democrat party leader (Tom Daschle) served as Senator from South Dakota. Other examples can be found in similar states such as Minnesota, Iowa, and recently Wisconsin.

#4.1.2.1.1.1 Christopher B on 2016-11-23 15:08 (Reply)

Christopher B: It would appear that the Democrats have been pursuing a strategy that limits their appeal to specific constituencies.

That's a common strategy for anyone seeking elective office. For instance, Trump primarily appealed to disaffected whites, and concentrated his efforts in battleground states. Abraham Lincoln didn't do so well in the South. Also, keep in mind that Clinton cobbled together significantly more votes than did Trump.

Christopher B: There is no structural reason that, to pick an example, South Dakota should be represented by three Republicans in Congress since from 1986 to 2004 a major Democrat party leader (Tom Daschle) served as Senator from South Dakota.

The coalition for a majority will vary from place to place.

Certainly Democrats should broaden their message, though without abandoning their belief in diversity. Clinton lacked an overarching positive message, and her opponent trolled to avoid any real discussion of the issues. And that's how you end up with the alt-right in the White House.

Christopher B: I was responding to your contention

You might just as well say that Republicans ignore urban minority voters. There's a fault line in American politics. Not sure how that can easily be bridged.

Consider that Barack Obama won election handily, yet Republicans immediately started to delegitimize his presidency for temporal political advantage. It worked. It was the triumph of a generation of truthiness, and now the President is an Internet troll with no inkling of government, hawking hotel suites and branded jewelry out of Trump Tower.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-24 09:26 (Reply)

Now we're getting somewhere.

When you get past all the truthy numbers like popular vote for president and a mythical national Congressional vote total, this is what the 2016 presidental election came down to.

Michigan 10,704
Wisconsin 27,506
Pennsylvania 57,588

If Hillary had convinced around 200K people (22K people in MI, 56K people in WI, and 116K in PA) to vote for her, we'd be talking about her wins (by the same margins as Trump) in those states. States that, as you pointed out, Barak Obama carried easily.

Candidates and policies matter.

The Democrats nominated the only person in the world who could lose an election to Donald Trump.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Christopher B on 2016-11-25 08:18 (Reply)

Christopher B: The Democrats nominated the only person in the world who could lose an election to Donald Trump.

Trump's trolling is disruptive. He beat every candidate in the Republican field as well. He wielded a new technology, which has always had inordinate effects. Consider radio and Welles's War of the Worlds radio drama, or Hitler for that matter. People hadn't learned to put the new technology in context, and were susceptible to undue influence.

If your point is that Democrats bear some responsibility for having an Internet troll win the U.S. presidency, sure; but they bear less responsibility than Republicans, less than those who voted for Trump, even less than those who directly aided his rise to power.

#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-25 09:38 (Reply)

you losers screwed yourselves.

#4.1.2.2 Will Bithers on 2016-11-23 12:31 (Reply)

We're not a member of any of your political parties.

#4.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 12:38 (Reply)

you're a hillary shill, a demoncrap tool, and a loser.

#4.1.2.2.1.1 Will Bithers on 2016-11-23 13:53 (Reply)

Z: Clinton won more votes than Trump.

That's very truthy. There is now way to tell as a lot of votes weren't counted because the state had already been won by a candidate. That doesn't count voter fraud.

#4.1.2.3 mudbug on 2016-11-23 12:39 (Reply)

mudbug: That's very truthy.

No. It's a factually supportable claim. Clinton now has a lead of over two million votes.

mudbug: There is now way to tell as a lot of votes weren't counted because the state had already been won by a candidate.

That is incorrect. Ballots are counted even after the winner is determined. That's why the vote totals have been updated over the last several days. Ballots are still being counted, primarily mail-in ballots. Provisional ballots are the only ballots that may or may not be counted.

#4.1.2.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 12:49 (Reply)

I know people in my blue state, and people in CA, who don't bother voting because the conclusion is foregone.

#4.1.2.3.1.1 bd on 2016-11-23 12:57 (Reply)

3M votes were cast by illegal voters.

That's what the statistical analysis shows. Or have you given up on statistics now too?

#4.1.2.3.1.2 DrTorch on 2016-11-23 13:00 (Reply)

DrTorch: 3M votes were cast by illegal voters.

Making stuff up is not evidence.

#4.1.2.3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 13:03 (Reply)

There are those on the left who are suggesting that the Hillary campaign dispute the results of several states on similarly sketchy evidence: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

#4.1.2.3.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-11-23 14:17 (Reply)

The evidence is a statistical correlation that may have alternative causes. It's unlikely to hold up on review. However, calling for a recount is an appeal to evidence. It's not going to go anywhere, though.

#4.1.2.3.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-23 14:40 (Reply)

You are correct about votes such as absentee votes. Thanks for the correction.

#4.1.2.3.1.3 mudbug on 2016-11-23 13:52 (Reply)

No mention of the fact that the Democrats gerrymandered themselves. In order to create black-majority districts, the Democrats forgot they were also thereby creating districts with a majority of everybody else. And the intentional political racial segregation by the Democrats starting in the Seventies has now come back to bite them big time, as blacks are a smaller and smaller percentage of the whole, and, on top of that, don't vote. I have no sympathy for the Democrats--the gerrymander was their tool and they basically committed political suicide by becoming a party of anti-American entitlement special interests, rather than appealing to Americans.

#4.1.2.4 Jim on 2016-11-23 13:55 (Reply)

I know it's not poetry Saturday at the Farm, but I found this and thought MFers would like to comment:

Single mom
Absent dad
Do you know where
your adult son is?
Do you understand his rage?
--Anonymous

#5 faculty wife on 2016-11-23 12:58 (Reply)

If you want to fix this problem (births out of wedlock, absent fathers and record high divorce rates).

1. End welfare!!!

2. Make ALL custody cases result in 50/50 shared physical custody without exceptions. With of course no child support payments since each parent would have 50% custody.

#5.1 SweetPea on 2016-11-23 14:25 (Reply)

Is it just me, but everytime Zachriel types "we" I think of Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. Yes it is that creepy.

#6 missred on 2016-11-23 13:33 (Reply)

his use of "we" is a well known self defense mechanism. he feels threatened and this is a way of distancing himself from criticism, as he doesn't really believe what he's preaching.

#6.1 Will Bithers on 2016-11-23 13:58 (Reply)

It puts the lotion on. Yes I agree "Z" totally creepy. The only real difference is,I believe, he fell into his own hole in his mother's basement and can't climb out. No wonder he has such an isolated view of the world.

#6.2 pocono pam on 2016-11-23 23:10 (Reply)

Why People Lost Their Minds When A Brooklyn Store Played ‘Sweet Home Alabama’

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/23/brooklyn-grocery-store-played-sweet-home-alabama-everyone-lost-minds/

The song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye5BuYf8q4o

#7 feeblemind on 2016-11-23 13:54 (Reply)

Why? What's wrong with that tune?

#7.1 bd on 2016-11-23 14:11 (Reply)

QUOTE:

VDH (2016): Who Are Wise, Who Not?

JH (2005): "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."

#8 Zachriel on 2016-11-24 12:21 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, November 23. 2016

Wednesday morning links