The Gaming Den

Oh my god will you just shut the fuck up just shut the fuck up please for the love of all that is holy shut the fuck up.

For the sake of what little sanity remains to me, I hereby propose that any and all discussions about what went wrong with the 2016 election should begin with a statement about a specific electoral circumstance which contributed to HRC's defeat ("Wisconsin flipped red - just barely - as a result of voter suppression targeting Democrats") and end with a point about how to address that specific circumstance ("You can't, because there is no longer any branch of government capable of acting as a restraint on voter suppression efforts"). Honestly, of all the post-election posts I have had to sit through your's is the fucking worst.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:but the heart and soul of the people was overridden by a magic evil conspiracy.

Yes, it's called voter suppression. It's literally an evil conspiracy, except maybe for the conspiracy part, because Republicans will openly brag about flipping elections by suppressing votes, and during one of the lawsuits a Republican lawmaker's aides testified that his boss had said while discussing the bill that the intent was to reduce Democratic turnout. It takes the form of voter ID laws, closed polling places, targeted voter roll purges, reduced access to early voting, and so on.

It was a significant factor (as in, the number of voters deterred potentially outweighs Trump's margins) in Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, and maybe a few more - enough to flip the outcome of the election. It was a large-but-probably-not-significant-who-knows factor in Ohio and basically every traditionally Republican state peopled talked about maybe turning blue (Texas, Arizona, Georgia, etc, etc).

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Anyone remember the Occupy Wall Street protests? Does anyone remember any effect they had or coherent position they espoused other than 'Wall Street bad?' No?

I'm pretty sure everyone remembers Occupy Wall Street, and I'm pretty sure everyone can tell you they were protesting income/wealth inequality (and a bunch of related issues, like financial deregulation and the weakening of our campaign finance laws). Everyone has heard the "we are the 99%" line, and the fact that you're here telling us how "incoherent" OWS is despite knowing exactly what their message was is honestly a pretty hilarious testament to how bullshit media coverage can be and how well it can influence idiots. Which is why it's so hilarious that it comes immediately after telling everyone to "stop bitching about how shitty the media is." What a juxtaposition!

Alternative idea: when "emailgate" is the single most covered scandal by the media and the other candidate is a Cosby-esque sexual predator with a long history of business fraud, you should absolutely bitch about the media, because holy shit. But even setting aside scandals, Trump got about three times as much policy-based coverage Clinton. I wonder if that has anything to do with your whining about how "no one can actually cite Hillary's policies?" Maybe the media's failure to cover those policies is actually the fucking media's failure to cover those policies, and the media's refusal to discuss policy when one candidate is a COMPLETE FUCKING HACK WHOSE PROPOSALS FAIL AS A MATTER OF BASIC ARITHMETIC is something we should absolutely bitch about?

God I'm tired of you stupid assholes. I'm not even halfway through that wall of text and it gets worse but I can't. I just can't. If there is one thing you should walk away from the 2016 election having learned it's that the media is fucking awful and yet your entire post is just "stop bitching about the media, also here are a bunch of blatantly false media narratives about the 2016 election." It's fucking torture. Donald Trump doesn't need to bring back waterboarding. He can just stick you in a room with someone and let you talk about politics and they'll break, I guarantee it.

Capn literally every single thing you said is completely wrong and stupid, and demonstrates that you are an idiot who has no idea what they are talking about, so pick literally any dumb thing you said, and I will explain how you are 100% wrong in detail, and then you can delete your entire stupid waste of time post and admit that you are 100% wrong about everything.

Kaelik wrote:Capn literally every single thing you said is completely wrong and stupid, and demonstrates that you are an idiot who has no idea what they are talking about, so pick literally any dumb thing you said, and I will explain how you are 100% wrong in detail, and then you can delete your entire stupid waste of time post and admit that you are 100% wrong about everything.

Fine.

Which movement was more effective at achieving its political goals, the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, and why? Be sure to give concrete examples of legislators elected and laws passed due to the OWS movement, and compare the longevity of the two movements.

Or maybe you can explain how the Trump protesters hindered Trump in any conceivable way.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Which movement was more effective at achieving its political goals, the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, and why? Be sure to give concrete examples of legislators elected and laws passed due to the OWS movement, and compare the longevity of the two movements.

Well A) That isn't what you said, but B) While I am about to address what you actually said and thoroughly destroy it, let's compare the legislative accomplishments of the Tea Party vs OWS:

Tea Party: Have taxes been cut? No. Has Obamacare been repealed? No. Success rate: 0%.

So literally anything accomplished by OWS makes them the more successful movement (which isn't what you originally claimed in your dumb post, but whatever).

OWS: Govenor Cumo ran on a platform which had as one of the planks "No Millionaire's tax." Then OWS happened, and he was constantly protested everywhere he went, and then he called for tax reform, and now New York has a Millionaire's tax. Shit boiiiii.

Also meanwhile, the Occupy movement continues to involve itself in federal agency rule making on a regular basis, which by the way, is really fucking important, but you are too stupid to understand that, so I won't go into it too much, but basically, the Volker rule is a strongly interpreted as it is today because of Agency Rules not legislation, and those Agency Rules were promulgated after OWS, and commented on by OWS.

Now on to the dumb thing you actually said:

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Liberals appear weak and incoherent
Anyone remember the Occupy Wall Street protests? Does anyone remember any effect they had or coherent position they espoused other than 'Wall Street bad?' No?

Compare this to the Republicans, especially the Tea Party. The Tea Party had a set of actual goals (repeal Obamacare! Cut taxes!), actual organization and planning (look at all the people in Congress they put there) and enough political clout to break John Boehner. Their opening salvo was "make Obama a one-term president" and while their causes were horrible and stupid, their political strength was never in doubt.

So OWS is incoherent because no one can possibly name their actual goals, even though any idiot can name their actual goals.

On the other hand, the Tea Party is a powerful movement that succeeded in all of it's goals like:

1) The thing it hasn't done.
2) The thing it hasn't done.
3) The thing it can never do because Obama had a second term.

Now, on top of that, you are branding the Tea Party with the motives of "Have a Republican President, Cut Taxes, and Repeal Democratic passed entitlement legislation." Notice how, if you time traveled back in time before the Tea Party existed, 100% of that would be the goals of the Republicans.

JOKES ON YOU IDIOT! YOU PERSONALLY CAN'T EVEN NAME A TEA PARTY POSITION AT ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In conclusion, you are dumb and wrong on everything, because you picked the one issue you had the most solid footing on, that you were most right on, and you were so wrong that you were basically a Russian Doll of wrong where opening up each wrongness reveals another wrongness inside.

So now delete your entire post, because the whole thing was basically just as wrong, or more wrong than this one part I addressed, but I don't have time to refute every single fucking dumb thing you said.

The fact that the Tea Party was successful and Occupy was not doesn't really say much given that the Tea Party had Fox News in its corner. It's like saying that Adolfo Diaz was a better politician than Jose Santos and insisting that the revolution was 100% down to Santos being a limpdicked incoherent pansy and had absolutely nothing to do with US ratfucking him over the Nicaragua Canal Project.

(For Kaelik: I consider getting Trump elected to be a 'success' for the Tea Party.)

Grek wrote:The fact that the Tea Party was successful and Occupy was not doesn't really say much given that the Tea Party had Fox News in its corner. It's like saying that Adolfo Diaz was a better politician than Jose Santos and insisting that the revolution was 100% down to Santos being a limpdicked incoherent pansy and had absolutely nothing to do with US ratfucking him over the Nicaragua Canal Project.

But more importantly, the Tea Party has utterly failed, in fact, in addition to not actually succeeding at their goals, they have failed so utterly that even people praising them for their clear and concise goals don't actually know what their goals are. Hint it's not the things Republicans have been succeeding at doing since before you were born you fucking idiot. (Not you Grek, the idiot idiot who you were responding to.)

Grek wrote:(For Kaelik: I consider getting Trump elected to be a 'success' for the Tea Party.)

Only if Trump were actually going to do anything that the Tea Party liked, but since he is literally exactly like every other Republican + Authoritarianism, and the Tea Party is about limited government and the destruction of deficit spending, he is literally the least Tea Party candidate of the 17 fielded by the Republican Primaries.

The Tea Party is not the radical anti-establishment wing of the Republican party. For fuck's sake, from the word 'go' the speakers at their events were mainstream Republican establishment figures. The Tea Party is a brand name for an engineered Republican grass roots movement, and in the end was little more than a "get out the vote" program for the Republican base. It's defining policies were radical, uncompromising fiscal conservatism - i.e. 100% the same shit Republicans have always wanted, 0% Trump's populist rhetoric. The only disagreement they ever had with establishment Republicans was over how much political capital to spend on obstructionism in the name of the exact same fucking goals, with establishment Republicans arguing "a lot" and Tea Party Republicans arguing "all of it."

Trump is not a Tea Party candidate. Tea Party candidates have actually had something of a bad year as far as primaries go, because it turns out radical fiscal conservatism is not what does it for Republican voters - just ask Trump.

I guess we'll find out what this is about soon enough.


I hope it's damning enough to put real gas in the Electoral College end-run. I mean, I hope it's more damning than that, but that's the least I hope for.

Unfortunately, all of the information about Putin's assistance to Trump was filed alongside Obama's real birth certificate. And both were entombed beneath the radioactive waste material disposal site.

Sorry!

Occluded Sun wrote:Unfortunately, all of the information about Putin's assistance to Trump was filed alongside Obama's real birth certificate. And both were entombed beneath the radioactive waste material disposal site.

Sorry!

These jabs always lack punch without a smug Pepe.

nockermensch wrote:

Occluded Sun wrote:Unfortunately, all of the information about Putin's assistance to Trump was filed alongside Obama's real birth certificate. And both were entombed beneath the radioactive waste material disposal site.

Sorry!

These jabs always lack punch without a smug Pepe.

Personally I find they lack punch when the clearly demonstrate the insanity of the person making the attempt.

Like, imagine two liberal insults aimed at someone who says "and now Trump is going to decrease the National Debt with a Republican President and Congress!"

Version A: "You thought the same thing when you crowed over the last guy becoming president with fewer votes, and look how that turned out."

Version B: "You thought the same thing when you crowed over the last guy becoming president with fewer votes, and he blew up the World Trade Center with a Controlled Demolition."

One of those stings more, and it's not the one that proves you are insane.

I somewhat doubt that Russia actually did anything of any significance to influence this election. It's basically been mostly just a go to scapegoat for a liberal establishment seeking anything to blame but itself that is so out of touch it's going for traditional cold war McCarthyist scapegoats. Maybe some hacks and leaks went through Russia but that's basically just how the shady side of the internet works.

More importantly I doubt anything that Russia may have done or could have done could possibly be significant enough to warrant some sort of overturn of the election. I ESPECIALLY doubt that anything Russia might have done is of any notable impact in comparison to the things the US did, and routinely does to itself to influence it's elections.

But MOST of all I think it is utterly hypocritical of the USA of all nations to DARE to complain that ANY other nation did SOMETHING, ANYTHING, short of armed invasion to merely influence your democratic choice of government. The sheer lack of perspective and bald faced blind hypocrisy of the nation behind THIS list daring to complain that some other nation might have in any way subtly leaned on their election in some manner.

Get a grip. You ran a wildly unpopular candidate against an insane clown and reaped the consequences of your centrist establishment's own poor choices. If you cannot bring yourself to admit that you will NEVER get this fixed even once you get a real opportunity instead of fantasies of overturning the election.

PhoneLobster wrote:I somewhat doubt that Russia actually did anything of any significance to influence this election. It's basically been mostly just a go to scapegoat for a liberal establishment seeking anything to blame but itself that is so out of touch it's going for traditional cold war McCarthyist scapegoats. Maybe some hacks and leaks went through Russia but that's basically just how the shady side of the internet works.

I'm sure I trust your opinion of the email leaks far more than the government agencies that investigated it and came to a different conclusion.

I mean after all, you aren't a random asshole with no information at all and a really really really dumb ax to grind.

Kaelik wrote:

nockermensch wrote:

Occluded Sun wrote:Unfortunately, all of the information about Putin's assistance to Trump was filed alongside Obama's real birth certificate. And both were entombed beneath the radioactive waste material disposal site.

Sorry!

These jabs always lack punch without a smug Pepe.

Personally I find they lack punch when the clearly demonstrate the insanity of the person making the attempt.

Like, imagine two liberal insults aimed at someone who says "and now Trump is going to decrease the National Debt with a Republican President and Congress!"

Version A: "You thought the same thing when you crowed over the last guy becoming president with fewer votes, and look how that turned out."

Version B: "You thought the same thing when you crowed over the last guy becoming president with fewer votes, and he blew up the World Trade Center with a Controlled Demolition."

One of those stings more, and it's not the one that proves you are insane.

As much as we like to blame Bush for that, the fact is that the planning and prep work for such an operation would have taken much longer than a year, so it was probably in the works during the Clinton Administration. I doubt Bush even knew about it. The CIA is the most likely culprit.

I don't believe the CIA is competent enough to manage blowing up the WTC.

Coverage during the election in total:



Times Clinton was talked about most: Emails, DNC, Emails, Illness, Emails, Emails.

Time Trump was talked about most: 100% of the rest of the time. You really want to tell me that 100% of that coverage was scandals and zero percent was constant bullshit fawning about how Trump was appealing to the "white working class".

The same media that non-stop reports about how Trump "stood up to business" by talking to a company who threatened to close two plants, and saying "How about I pay you 7 Billion dollars, and you only close one plant!"

Most of the time I heard about Trump it was about controversies. If there was positive coverage of Trump I never heard it. Anecdotal, I know but it was my understanding that he was saying crazy shit specifically so he could have the sensationalist media following his every word.

Occluded Sun wrote:I don't believe the CIA is competent enough to manage blowing up the WTC.

They didn't plan to. The idea was just to blow up a couple of floors, to make it look good. But then the whole thing just pancaked down.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:I guess we'll find out what this is about soon enough.


I hope it's damning enough to put real gas in the Electoral College end-run. I mean, I hope it's more damning than that, but that's the least I hope for.

Ron Wyden always earns the fuck out of my vote.

I've been dreading X-mas with my stupid Trumpkin relatives, but I've finally decided how to handle it. I'm going to find a 4th grade civics test online and demand they pass it before attempting to discuss politics. They'll refuse of course, but then I just keep reiterating that their understanding of how our (US) government functions is less than that of a 10 yeah old.

You absolutely heard policy coverage about Trump. I can point to a bajillion and one articles talking about Trump's "strong performance" on trade during the first debate, even though he was completely talking out of his ass and nothing he said would have held up to even the most basic scrutiny. That's not an isolated incident. Trump got a lot of policy coverage, if only because a lot of his policy proposals were outright horrifying - and the media went to great lengths to normalize that by using words like "controversial," i.e. as in "people disagree with him," as opposed to doing any sort of legitimate rigorous discussion that would have made it clear that fraudlent hackery was fraudulent hackery.

They did the same thing with Paul Ryan. It's not new. The refusal to call bullshit bullshit, and instead retreat back to weasel words like "controversial" or other "both sides" idioms has greatly empowered con artists like... well... Trump.

Oh, whatever. The New York Times pretty much openly called him a rapist and reacted to him suing them with "lol just fkin do it, nerd". Everyone called him out all the time on not having any evidence for any of his bizarre proclamations. Even Fox News was hesitant to say anything positive, and they'd endorse a steaming turd as long it was a shit taken by a Republican politician. He had traditionally conservative papers making a big show of endorsing Clinton. The media was overwhelmingly critical of Trump, that's part of why everyone was surprised by the result. You're bitching because you feel that everything you read should have been either a wrathful opinion piece condemning him, or a sober explanation of why Hillary's policies were Good For America.

The media isn't to blame. They excoriated him and called him out on all his bullshit claims- that's why he's been castigating them in public and in private meetings.

This was the DNC's fight to lose, and they conspired to have a one-sided primary to pick a neoliberal, corporate shill who shamelessly made campaign promises that were obviously fantastical, impossible lies to anyone paying attention, who alternately wavered between "wealth inequality is fine how it is, let's not rock the boat" and "no, young millenials, I totally do have a plan to reign in corporate America. And by 'plan' I basically mean 'make them pay slightly more insurance', and by 'reign in' I mean 'let banks pay me vast sums of money to give speeches assuring them that they're doing a bang up job and should be left alone'. There is no conflict of interest; I assure you that this serves my interests perfectly.

SlyJohnny wrote:Oh, whatever. The New York Times pretty much openly called him a rapist and reacted to him suing them with "lol just fkin do it, nerd". Everyone called him out all the time on not having any evidence for any of his bizarre proclamations. Even Fox News was hesitant to say anything positive, and they'd endorse a steaming turd as long it was a shit taken by a Republican politician. He had traditionally conservative papers making a big show of endorsing Clinton. The media was overwhelmingly critical of Trump, that's part of why everyone was surprised by the result. You're bitching because you feel that everything you read should have been either a wrathful opinion piece condemning him, or a sober explanation of why Hillary's policies were Good For America.

Here's the Politco piece on Trump's Wall just after his nomination.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... co-border/

Now aside from the terrible headline, notice how this treats Trump's absolutely insane idea to build a wall as not just possible (when it isn't) but like a reasonable idea, then it follows up by talking about HOW MEXICO COULD TOTALLY END UP PAYING FOR IT!

That's actual new coverage from a real news source.

Meanwhile, CNN was busy hiring people on Trump's payroll and ignoring Clinton's ongoing speech to focus their attention on an empty Podium that Trump might hypothetically stand at.

But yeah, tell me all about how CNN was constantly calling out Trump and his surrogates for their baseless claims the whole time you delusional nutcase.

Kaelik, that graph looks awesome. Do you have a source for it? Only thing I can find when I reverse image search is some other forum.

The FBI is going to get a big new shiny Headquarters building as a 2 billion dollar project that Trump's buddies are going to build at tax payer expense with all the bells and whistles the winning bid also gets to just own the current FBI quarters after they finish, and why is there a 2 billion dollar FBI project? Because Comey lobbied for it his entire time as director... Originally the trade of properties was supposed to be instead of paying them more money, but not it's being done in addition to more money, because of course it is.