Karl`s PC Help Forums

MAGA
marymary100 - 5-1-2018 at 13:25

In numbers


John_Little - 6-1-2018 at 11:26

I wouldn't mind if a copy of Fire and Fury dropped through my letter box.


marymary100 - 6-1-2018 at 11:32

Send it to me after...


marymary100 - 6-1-2018 at 22:39

Stable genius - still laughing. :D


JackInCT - 6-1-2018 at 23:18

What those failed numbers really tell you is just how much Hillary was disliked to the extent/point where, via the Electoral College system, she lost, i e., Donald didn't win, Hillary lost.


marymary100 - 6-1-2018 at 23:32

Says a lot about America though that those were your two TOP candidates...


scholar - 7-1-2018 at 00:04

They were not the two top candidates in the sense that they were the best candidates, they were the two candidates that prevailed in the nominating process.

Hillary won because the process was rigged to favor someone like her. She had large numbers of votes locked in ahead of time, super-delegates who owed favors to the Clintons. (Super-delegates are people like senators and congressmen, whose votes are independent of primary or caucus results.) She had much more money than her opponents, and the Democratic National Committee, which is supposed to be impartial, made plans and took actions to help Hillary. A number of Sanders supporters rightly discerned that the Democrat Party did not care about them, and moved support to Trump, who was pushing for economic growth policies, greater employment, and higher-paying jobs.

Republicans who favored proven office-holders with some experience in either executive or legislative politics divided their votes among many such candidates. Anti-establishment, anti-politician, anti-Washington Republicans had fewer choices, and tended to support Trump after Fiorina and Dr. Carson did not get many votes.


JackInCT - 7-1-2018 at 00:59

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
They were not the two top candidates in the sense that they were the best candidates, they were the two candidates that prevailed in the nominating process.


You're exactly right.

I discern a rather naïve view on the part of some posters of how one gets to be a candidate for public office. It is a view that somehow it's akin to a school debating society and the winner is chosen by a preconceived set of rules based on formal logic/conclusions/etc.,.

Real life is NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL; in fact it is as different from school as it could possibly be.

The electorate is not the equivalent of a group of Phd's steeped in formal cause and effect. It is a group of jaded, cynical, and most of all self-serving individuals who care about what's in it for them since they have more confidence in next YEAR'S weather forecast than politicians.

The never ending lies from politicians, their lack of a work ethic, their never ending penchant for photo ops, etc., takes its toll on a society.

The old adage of 'lesser of evils' is, to varying degrees, the public's view of politicians. Nothing speaks more to that being in place than the kind of dialogue that occurred during the debates which were basically name calling. Any candidate worth their salt would have walked off the stage; and of course none didn't cause their values are not in that camp. More importantly, from a perspective as to whether any of them were presidential timber, they would have instantly recognized how such dialogue would further sour an already fragile democracy.


marymary100 - 7-1-2018 at 09:40

You chose this system. Your president is not the leader of the winning party necessarily. Nor do they have to win the popular vote. They have to win the electoral vote. It's stuff and nonsense set up to keep business as usual. A semblance of democracy.


JackInCT - 7-1-2018 at 12:51

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
You chose this system. Your president is not the leader of the winning party necessarily. Nor do they have to win the popular vote. They have to win the electoral vote. It's stuff and nonsense set up to keep business as usual. A semblance of democracy.


There was never a majority choice for the system; calling it "inherited" strikes me as missing the point as to how it all came to be. But certainly the apathy of the populace has a good deal to do with that. Revolution is a laugher as everyone believes that it would be a complete waste of time as the new bosses would be exactly the same as the old ones. And then there is the ennui factor, even for the so called "poor" who seem to lack the will of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps as, at least economically and material possessions, little could ever change that.

THE USA IS NOT ABOUT STRIVING FOR IDEAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PURITY.


John_Little - 7-1-2018 at 12:55

No matter who you vote for, the politicians always win.


LSemmens - 8-1-2018 at 00:07

You wonder why we get the politicians we do, no matter the system? It has nothing to do with the prestige, or the money. Who, in their right mind, wants a job when you are on call 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Every decision made is questioned and ridiculed. There are more than enough people to tell you how to do your job. You have no power to hire or fire, and every fart is reported in public media. And your job is up for grabs every few years with NO JOB SECURITY.

Now, if someone offered you a job like that, would you really want it?


JackInCT - 8-1-2018 at 02:15

Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
You wonder why we get the politicians we do, no matter the system? It has nothing to do with the prestige, or the money. Who, in their right mind, wants a job when you are on call 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Every decision made is questioned and ridiculed. There are more than enough people to tell you how to do your job. You have no power to hire or fire, and every fart is reported in public media. And your job is up for grabs every few years with NO JOB SECURITY.

Now, if someone offered you a job like that, would you really want it?


I agree with your premise, but NOT AT ALL about their workload.
A call to the office of any public official politician by Joe/Jane Doe runs a gauntlet of secretaries who wouldn't let you anywhere near the boss.

4-5 yrs ago I got an email from one of my state's US Senators who I had never ever had any contact with whatsoever. I was curious (putting it mildly) how they got my email address. You would think that I was asking for the nuclear war codes, and a couple of so called local (constituent) offices, listed in the phone book, weren't even manned 5 days a week, 9-5 style.

I think that you are being way overly generous just how much real work they ever do.


Redwolf5150 - 11-1-2018 at 04:29

Quote:
Originally posted by JackInCT

I agree with your premise, but NOT AT ALL about their workload.
A call to the office of any public official politician by Joe/Jane Doe runs a gauntlet of secretaries who wouldn't let you anywhere near the boss.


What, you don't have the personal cell phone numbers for your U.S. Senators, member of Congress and state senators and assembly persons?

I do.

You don't just sashay into the mayor's office, plop down in the chair across the desk and raid his candy dish?

I do.

All the time.

kewl_glasses


Redwolf5150 - 11-1-2018 at 04:30

Then again, they like to stay on my GOOD side.

I buy my ink by the 55-gallon drum and paper in big, BIG rolls.

:D


LSemmens - 11-1-2018 at 08:34

Hi RW, we used to do the same for our local Mayor, too. Heck the Chief Minister (State Premier) even skipped an official function to make sure we left the Territory. Knowing him, and other pollies, they do tend to spend an inordinate amount of time out in the community and always seem to be off here, there or somewhere else performing their "official duties".

If they have good staff then there is little chance you will get anywhere near them unless there is good reason.


scholar - 15-1-2018 at 10:17

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
I wouldn't mind if a copy of Fire and Fury dropped through my letter box.


The book is riddled with errors that are easy to determine are false. Wolff is known as a gossip-magazine-type writer, who gets ideas of what he thinks (or wants to think) happened and fills in actions and dialog to give his story substance.

Here is one article.

Here is another.

In his previous writings, people whom he has "quoted" have flatly stated that they never said what he has put in their mouths.


John_Little - 15-1-2018 at 12:05

Don't tell Redwolf that I said it, but isn't that just journalism?


scholar - 16-1-2018 at 00:21

JL, all too often, that passes for journalism in present times.

I have the impression that Redwolf may be the old school, report-what-you-can-verify kind of journalist-reporter.


LSemmens - 16-1-2018 at 00:36

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
JL, all too often, that passes for journalism in present times.

I have the impression that Redwolf may be the old school, report-what-you-can-verify kind of journalist-reporter.

For once, Scholar, I suspect that you are 100% correct. We all trust you RW.waveysmiley


Redwolf5150 - 8-2-2018 at 05:03

Yup, just an old school, who, what, when, why and how, just the facts kind of journalist.
One who can cover ANY assignment you put me on, as this front page illustrates.

Lookie here

(Note the bylines on EVERYTHING on it)

nananana


marymary100 - 8-2-2018 at 06:34

It should really be the JT News...


LSemmens - 8-2-2018 at 10:16

:D When do you get naming rights?


Redwolf5150 - 9-2-2018 at 00:13

Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
:D When do you get naming rights?


When I can scrape together about $1.25 million to buy both newspapers from the family that has owned them for close to 80 years.

shocked_yellow


LSemmens - 9-2-2018 at 05:31

A man of your resources, that should be a walk in the park! ;)


John_Little - 9-2-2018 at 13:28

I came across Donald's youtube channel while searching for the bald patch video. I thought this one was particularly funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1amVK_5ztQ


marymary100 - 9-2-2018 at 17:00

He and Kimmy-baby are very similar.


LSemmens - 10-2-2018 at 00:22

I just finished watching a (short) series on Netflix called "Dirty money". It covered things like VW's pollution control methods, Ponzi, and dedicated an entire show to one of the presidents of the USofA. I wonder whom? ;)


scholar - 10-2-2018 at 20:02

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
I came across Donald's youtube channel while searching for the bald patch video. I thought this one was particularly funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1amVK_5ztQ


Behind the advert is a serious point.

For many decades, the Democrat Party has proclaimed itself to champion the working class, greater employment, and higher wages.

President Trump's policies have led to greater domestic employment, higher wages, and bonuses to regular workers. He has pushed to get companies active in the U.S. to build plants here and put their money here, by lowering taxes and by switching to bilateral trade deals that are better for the U.S. He favors tariffs to take away the advantage which some countries give their manufacturers by government subsidies, which give them an unfair advantage against U.S. companies.

It used to be that people of both parties applauded and supported good ideas and good causes. But now, Democrats don't applaud greater employment. They don't applaud higher wages. They don't applaud black people getting more job opportunities. They don't applaud success in areas where they have largely failed, because they don't like that Trump is the agent of success. Their pundits said that money from lower taxes on businesses would be swallowed up by the business owners, and not reach the ordinary workers. But instead, about 300 businesses have given their workers bonuses from $1000 to $3000, and many others have increased wages to their workers.

When Democrats are against things that are good for the American people, because Trump now leads as President--that is a bad thing.


LSemmens - 11-2-2018 at 07:55

That, is politics as it now is, Scholar, I'm not aware of ANY opposition that actually applauds what the incumbent does, regardless of if it is a great idea, or not. It would be great if politics were bi-partisan, but that hardly happens any more.


marymary100 - 11-2-2018 at 10:29

After 8 years of criticising Obama for every single initiative and the lies about Democrat front runners, from Russian sources, it's hardly surprising now is it? Americans have chosen to vote in again and again corrupt politicians who feather their own nests while serving their donors and not the people. If that's your version of democracy, you'd be as well to live in Russia or North Korea.


John_Little - 11-2-2018 at 11:20

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Behind the advert is a serious point.


I just thought it was funny. Almost like a comedy sketch about a politician who takes himself too seriously.


Redwolf5150 - 11-2-2018 at 15:58

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
When Democrats are against things that are good for the American people, because Trump now leads as President--that is a bad thing.


But it was perfectly acceptable for the GOP to oppose everything Obama did?

rant0000