Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2016, 05:12 AM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(25-11-2016 05:03 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(25-11-2016 03:49 AM)morondog Wrote:  And spent a whole lotta time boasting about how "Wednesday's release will SINK Hillary"?

Right, that's not true. Assange/Wikileaks never said anything of the sort. Sloppy reporting from other news agencies is where you got those sensationalised claims from.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...weeks.html

So all that October surprise bullshit turning out to be exactly that is now sloppy reporting on the part of others?

Quote:
Quote:The wikileaks shit was slated to have a huge effect on the election, why the hell should some random little twat from who the fuck knows where have such leverage, to decide where and when to release things that might even affect national security?

How the fuck is "national security" related to information about foreign political parties?!

So electing the US president is now no longer a US national security issue. Someone saying "Ho ho ho, I have information that can affect the election" and playing silly buggers isn't attempting to monkey with the system either?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2016, 05:23 AM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(25-11-2016 05:12 AM)morondog Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...weeks.html

So all that October surprise bullshit turning out to be exactly that is now sloppy reporting on the part of others?

Yes. Wikileaks never promised that. Only that their releases would continue.

Quote:So electing the US president is now no longer a US national security issue. Someone saying "Ho ho ho, I have information that can affect the election" and playing silly buggers isn't attempting to monkey with the system either?

It might be for the US, but that's a foreign nation.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2016, 07:18 AM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(25-11-2016 05:23 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(25-11-2016 05:12 AM)morondog Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...weeks.html

So all that October surprise bullshit turning out to be exactly that is now sloppy reporting on the part of others?

Yes. Wikileaks never promised that. Only that their releases would continue.
They certainly thrived off the hype and didn't do anything to counter it. Prior to their big ol fancy news-conference dear Julian said lots of shit about how it "could affect the election". So... they're still not some unknown bunch of clowns attempting to influence American affairs?

Quote:
Quote:So electing the US president is now no longer a US national security issue. Someone saying "Ho ho ho, I have information that can affect the election" and playing silly buggers isn't attempting to monkey with the system either?

It might be for the US, but that's a foreign nation.
Hah. Pardon me for not fully specifying that I was refering to the United States of America, a political entity of planet Earth existing since year 17-whatchermacallit, when we were having a conversation about US politics Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2016, 10:00 AM (This post was last modified: 25-11-2016 10:41 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(25-11-2016 05:03 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Well they were genuine emails, are you suggesting otherwise?

Some had digital signatures, some did not. Without a digital signature, how do you know they were genuine? It would be surprising if hackers didn't either alter, insert, or withhold whatever information they wanted to suit their agenda. That's what hackers do. Especially hackers for foreign intelligence agencies. I mean that's what our hackers do and Russia's got better ones. I can write an email coming from you to whoever I want saying whatever I want just by changing the headers. I can make an email written by someone else look like it came from you just by changing the header.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2016, 09:05 PM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(24-11-2016 06:03 PM)Aractus Wrote:  There's nothing wrong with the system. There was under party tickets, but with those eliminated it has made it much fairer. Pauline got her Senate seat purely on first-preferences. In Queensland they got 9% of the primary vote in the Senate - and there are 12 seats - so maths alone tells you they deserved 8% of the available seats, which is essentially what they got.

In 2013 David Leyonhjelm got in with just 0.6% of the primary vote, and he got in because of the now abolished "party tickets". The party tickets were terrible and horribly anti-democratic, preferences belong in the hands of the voters not in the hands of the parties. Under the old system this year's election would more than likely have produced more ON Senators as preferences from all minor parties (besides Greens) would have eventually flowed to them.

Point taken, but IMHO the major issue with our preferential system is that very few electors can comprehend its workings, and focus solely on the outcome of their Liberal or Labor vote—putting #1 against either candidate, and basically ignoring the rest of the numbers. Which is why donkey voting effectively happens so frequently, after their #1 choice.

And just like the US Democrats and Republicans, here it ends up overall as a two-horse race, with no serious 3rd party contenders (unless you count the whole cross-bench as an effective 3rd party LOL.)

BTW, I had to laugh at ON's result here in Victoria at 1.78%, or 0.23 quota. And of course the QLD hicks are gonna vote for Pauline... or Bob "ban Muslims" Katter. Dodgy

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: