So, Do You Look Forward To Hillary Clinton As President? [Trump Won]

[emaus78 2]

For all of us who live outside the walls of usa, there is a need to become more independent and escape the collapse of pax americana into the america first black hole.

 

 

"Trump election ignites fears over U.S. encryption, surveillance policy"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-idUSKBN13503H

Agree. For example, american politic in Balkans gave as only blood and tears. Hope it will change.

One more thing, interesting that everyone who doesn't think as liberals is fasict.. Same is in my country (Croatia).. Maybe it is true that some organizations try to rule the world. They have same methods. Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I don't defend Trump at all, just think he is better than 2 evils, but it is fascinating to see what media machine can do to brainwash people. I think this is revolution in human history where people will slowly start to think with their head, not only blindly believe in everything Big brother say.. (*sry for bad english, not my native language).

[LZ1 673]

@emaus78

Your English is fine man, no problems .

 

@Kepler

Even with a runaway technical breakthrough, nothing will change as long as you have a system that has vested interests against such change. For instance, there's nuclear technology based on a resource known as Thorium(LFTR - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) which has been lying around for 50 years. Thorium powered nuclear reactors are epic because:

1. Passive safety. Due to the design, if something goes wrong, even if it's a power cut, the reactor will set itself into a safe configuration. Automatically. No humans needed.
2. There's no high pressure. Thus a reactor meltdown is physically impossible. There's only high heat, which is fine in itself.
3. Thorium can't be used in nuclear weapons, due to its chemistry. Thus the Iran nuclear deal wouldn't be a problem with a thorium reactor for instance.
4. Thorium is literally everywhere on Earth and super plentiful. Unlike uranium or plutonium, which are precious.
5. Pound for pound, thorium provides a massive amount of energy. Truly massive. You wouldn't need many reactors, to power the entire world.
6. Due to there being no risk of a meltdown, you can build smaller reactor buildings. Which means it's faster and cheaper too. No 10 year lead times.
7. Thorium reactors (called LFTR really, pronounced Lifter), can use the nuclear waste of *other* current-day reactors. So nuclear waste also won't be an issue.
8. You never need to take out the Thorium from the core, so there's never any waste material and thus no nuclear exposure to anyone or anything.

Yet despite all that, LFTR reactors are nowhere to be seen. China is supposedly building some now, but as you can see, when there's no political will, nothing happens. Nuclear energy also enjoys a pretty tainted image as well. I linked to the documentary - it's quite excellent IMO . It's basically nuclear power, without all the known drawbacks. So I frankly disagree with technical breakthroughs being necessary. As long as you have systems which favor things like privatization and/or de-regulation as in the neoliberal order, there's little incentive for this sort of thing. That's where I think Hillary wouldn't have made a difference .

 

I also can't cut the us slack. I can cut individuals some slack, but not countries. Your story is only half of it or barely even. It points to an extremely rosey point of view. Just because the us did the bare minimum to help out its allies after WW2, doesn't mean it's excused for all the deliberate crimes it then went on to commit throughout the world; of which I think most people are ignorant of, despite the fact we live with the consequences of them today . I'm sure you wouldn't be so comfortable with being told you're living under a Chinese "military umbrella" - yet you're perfectly fine with saying it about the us. Which is unjustified. China for instance, hasn't been in a war for around 20-30 years now. While the us has been in near-continual war for the same period. Likewise Russia hasn't been the one to instigate most of wars in the Middle-East and only has around 2 military bases abroad, versus the several hundred of the us. Yet you still argue those countries are bad or worse and that Hillary would be best? I think that's very questionable . I honestly can't see how you would reason that China or Russia would be worse than the us. In a Cyber context, I think China is worse due to the censorship of its internet and such, but geo-politically?

 

That's where a lot of the appeal lies with Donald Trump. Yes he's a bigot and all that. But the mere chance of doing things a different way, is attractive. Just look at what he has said about Russia and Putin. I think it's refreshing that he's willing to work with Putin, instead of the alternative: more hatred towards Russia, for no good reason really. In the end, while I agree with your view of Trump, it just doesn't work to respond with "that's racist! " or its equivalent, whenever people have real issues: unemployment, faltering economies, increasing levels of wealth inequality and so on. All compounded by all these "free trade" deals, which aren't about trade, but about everything except trade. Hillary would've continued this .

[Kepler_452b 77]

@LZ1, as I read through your post, I think we agree on a lot of points. Just to clarify again, I'm no fan of HC nor of much that the U.S. has done. But I still believe the U.S. offers the only chance to sustain democracy into the future (and that may have just evaporated with Trump's election). You can't possibly think that Russia, which is an undisputed fascist dictatorship, offers a better chance for a democratic future than the U.S. (a majority of U.S. citizens voted against Trump...64% of Russians voted for Putin in a five way race with the next highest candidate receiving a quarter of that). And China? My god, an even more extreme fascist dictatorship replete with the trappings of a Great Firewall to cut off its citizens from any point of view other than the government's, and without even sham alternative parties to maintain the pretense of choice. The equivalence of evil you're trying to create between the U.S. on the one hand and Russia/China on the other is literally like comparing a molehill to a mountain. The difference in degree makes them different beasts. Unlike Russia or China, the U.S. has a strong history and tradition of democracy. People in the U.S. are trying to hang onto that. If it fails there it will fail everywhere and it certainly won't be revived from Russia or China.

[Kepler_452b 77]

P.S. The U.S.not only helped it's allies rebuild, it helped it's former enemies, Germany, Austria and Italy rebuild.

 

I'm not excusing any U.S. crimes. I think G.W. Bush, for instance, should be in jail along with a couple of former Presidents (Johnson and Nixon if they were still alive).

 

China hasn't been in any wars because they've been busy building their economy on the backs of domestic slave labor. But now they're certainly doing some very loud saber rattling and claiming other country's territory. And let's see, Russia hasn't been in wars in, ummm, oh ya, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Syria? It hasn't seized the territory of some neighboring state? Ummm, oh ya, the Ukraine.

[LZ1 673]

Thank you for the clarification. They're usually always nice ^^.

 

Don't you think you're exaggerating just a little bit, regarding a Democratic future being in jeopardy? Trump was elected on democratic grounds - or as democratic as it is in the us. 

 

I think you're biased towards Democracy and living on the assumption that Democracy is automatically the best or most desirable form of government. This is a big mistake in my view, but it's not unexpected. It's a little funny really, in that it seems that people who hold views similar to yours (respectfully), desire open-mindedness (no sexism, bigotry, racism, anti-abortion, etc.), yet instantly turn away anyone with a different mindset or approach. Say someone votes for Trump (or even that Brexit thing), it seems there's a tendency to reduce them to being racists and bigots (of course, some are). Similarly, those who don't subscribe to your notion of Democracy, are repressive fascist regimes. I wonder if you think this is wrong or not. Because the fact remains that both Russia and China have been doing pretty well for themselves. Especially China, in virtually all metrics besides internet-freedom and pollution(although this is improving). Yet you apparently don't care about this, as long as they're not Democratic. I think that's strange, respectfully. Because if you go to China, you may find that China is arguably more Capitalist and free in many ways, compared to the US.

 

The Great Firewall does have some positive effects though: Since there's often a greater convenience in not bypassing the wall, Chinese consumers will often favor local companies. Which in turn means more jobs, as these companies then grow. This can then positively impact the economy and then later, the rest of the world, as giants like Alibaba and Tencent expand. Likewise, more Chinese people learn how to use VPNs (hehe). But in terms of being in an opinion bubble, how is that much different from being on Facebook or Google? The Chinese people I've met, have no illusions about their government.

 

I think it's very easy to compare the us with China and/or Russia. I think you're sadly very very mistaken about the us. Again, respectfully speaking . Just because the us may be Democratic, it doesn't mean it's not capable of being an evil or bad country - yes, evil "on par" with whatever evil you can ascribe to China/Russia. There's plenty evidence that shows that the US actually hates any form of "Democracy"; especially outside its own borders. So perhaps you're right that the US can't be compared to China/Russia, except that the equation is reversed. You may think China is being aggressive with its territorial grabs in Asia, but did you consider why China is doing what it's doing? I think it would be too simplistic to resort to saying something along the lines of "well, because it's a fascist dictatorship". Even if it were a fascist dictatorship, that wouldn't help your Democracy argument, seeing as said dictatorship is currently outpacing the US very quickly in a number of ways. Perhaps especially with Trump at the helm now.

 

Us Democracy is also quite questionable in many ways after all: Extremely low voter turn out, all manner of electoral quirks as each state votes differently, counts differently, has different rules and different methodologies. Through to things such as the Electoral College and the notion that a candidate can lose a vote, like HIllary did, despite getting most votes, to campaigns being funded through SuperPACS by rich companies and the list goes on. Not to mention that while there's technically multiple parties in play, in practice there's only 2 - which speaks to the illusion of choice that you also alluded to. To speak nothing of how us politics is dominated

and how americans continually don't get what they want. So to call it a Democracy may in fact be a little insulting in the eyes of those countries whom arguably may have more robust systems .

 

I can't see how you can justify calling China's "slave labor" system out, when it has clearly proven to have worked very well for the country and is thus increasingly being rolled back now; hence why China isn't the cheapest place to manufacture in anymore, Chinese tourists are some of the biggest spenders and the Chinese economy is the 2nd biggest in the world (number 1, if you go by PPP). Thus it's estimated around 600 million people have been taken out of extreme poverty. That's double the us population. It seems like you're not willing to accept that things cannot be *ideal* from the start. That you can't have humane working conditions instantly for example. They made sacrifices and it worked. It's the same story in the West - just look at coal miners for example. As for Russia, you should keep in mind which country often creates the problem to begin with. During days past, it was promised that the West wouldn't "take one step to the East" in the form of NATO. Yet what happened? Yep, steps right towards Russia. Hopefully you can also appreciate the Russian security point of view. I think HC would've exacerbated this situation tremendously. 

 

I can agree to jail for GW and co though . But since HC has so much free time now, perhaps we shouldn't forget our manners: Ladies first!

[Kepler_452b 77]

Don't you think you're exaggerating just a little bit, regarding a Democratic future being in jeopardy? Trump was elected on democratic grounds - or as democratic as it is in the us. 

 

Hitler was elected on democratic grounds. Within two months of taking office as Chancellor of the republic he was the absolute unchangeable dictator of The Third Reich. That;s the way fascists operate.

[Kepler_452b 77]

I think you're biased towards Democracy and living on the assumption that Democracy is automatically the best or most desirable form of government. This is a big mistake in my view, but it's not unexpected. It's a little funny really, in that it seems that people who hold views similar to yours (respectfully), desire open-mindedness (no sexism, bigotry, racism, anti-abortion, etc.), yet instantly turn away anyone with a different mindset or approach. Say someone votes for Trump (or even that Brexit thing), it seems there's a tendency to reduce them to being racists and bigots (of course, some are). Similarly, those who don't subscribe to your notion of Democracy, are repressive fascist regimes. I wonder if you think this is wrong or not. Because the fact remains that both Russia and China have been doing pretty well for themselves. Especially China, in virtually all metrics besides internet-freedom and pollution(although this is improving). Yet you apparently don't care about this, as long as they're not Democratic. I think that's strange, respectfully. Because if you go to China, you may find that China is arguably more Capitalist and free in many ways, compared to the US.

 

Yes, I am proud to be "biased" in favor of democracy and "biased" against totalitarian regimes like those in Russia and China (and by the way hating totalitarian regimes is not the equivalent of hating the unfortunate people that have to live under them...quite the opposite). Apparently you think those regimes are nice alternatives. If I have that wrong, LZ1, please tell me what form of government you're biased in favor of. 

 

Regarding Brexit you've narrow-mindedly pre-assigned me to the anti-Brexit camp. In fact I was in favor of it.

 

As for my notion of Democracy, it involves actually having a democracy.

 

China is absolutely captialist, though they continue the double-speak hypocrisy of calling themselves a Communist state...laughable if it weren't so pathetically dishonest and transparent. Oh yes, they are doing very well for themselves on the backs of their poor peasants. Soon they will be well enough off to afford a military big enough to seize the territory of their less powerful neighbors (excepting Tibet whose territory they already seized). China is an intolerant severely oppressive single-party state that suppresses, jails, or kills anyone that publicly opposes it's leadership clique. That combination is the very definition of fascism. If you lived in China we wouldn't be having this conversation because you wouldn't be allowed to access foreign sites where people can openly criticize oppressive regimes.

[Kepler_452b 77]

Speaking of China, I was considering extended travel there. It's one of the reasons I signed-up to AirVPN, because Air had the rare capacity to circumvent the Great Firewall. Does anyone know if Air is still able to do that, and, technically, why can't the Chinese prevent Air from accessing the free internet from inside China?

[LZ1 673]

Speaking of China, I was considering extended travel there. It's one of the reasons I signed-up to AirVPN, because Air had the rare capacity to circumvent the Great Firewall. Does anyone know if Air is still able to do that, and, technically, why can't the Chinese prevent Air from accessing the free internet from inside China?

Air works from within China. But it's slow. The Chinese government knows it shouldn't crack down on all outside communication, as many citizens and companies rely on access for things like business. Besides, it can be a tricky business given the scale of the operation I think . If they just block all forms of encryption, the internet breaks as well lol.

 

Sent to you from me with datalove

[Kepler_452b 77]

It sounds like you're saying the Chinese government could block Air, but thinks it shouldn't. Does STAFF think its technically possible for China to block Air?

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

I voted for Jill Stein. I despise Clinton and Trump equally. My initial preference was for Bernie Sanders, as he was for a lot of other people. But the DNC was hellbent to annoint $hillary no matter what. They sh*t on Sanders, ridiculed and talked down to his supporters ("the dirty f*ckin' hippies"). And after all that, Bernie decided to sell out his principles and his supporters and back you-know-who. The democratic party bureaucrats were so confident in their arrogance that it was impossible for them to entertain the thought for a split second that there would likely be very unpleasant consequences for their contempt. I heard there were some post-election polls showing that Sanders would easily have beaten Trump in the 3 crucial swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. (Another uncomfortable little item they will either aggressively ignore or heatedly deny.)

 

Clinton was a terrible candidate and her political advisors and campaign managers ran an even worse campaign. Clinton screeched more about the ridiculous accusations of Russian interference in the election, and generally just running a campaign of fear. I'm sure most people would rather have heard her talk more about her policy positions and how she planned to help them. I'm convinced that she and the party power structure truly believed there was no way they could lose the election. That's what bottomless arrogance and a self righteous sense of entitlement will get you.

 

Persistent lying about the emails; being in the pocket of Goldman Sachs and every other Wall Street crook you can name; being in the pocket of the military-industrial complex (doesn't anyone find it strange that so many career military and neo-conservatives came out so vocally in support of her?); taking money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and various low-profile dictators around the world for The Clinton Foundation (which is nothing more than a thinly transparent money laundering lobbying vehicle); one of those leaked emails revealing that she knows for a fact that Saudi Arabia and other corrupt middle eastern states are heavily funding ISIL and other terrorist groups; another leaked email showing that during a State Dept. meeting she wondered aloud if it would be possible to simply drone Julian Assange. Destroying Libya and making it a failed state. An implicit promise to escalate U.S. military involvement in Syria, and anywhere else she damn well felt like it. (Gotta keep the Pentagon and those military defense contractors happy, dontchaknow....) Praising Comey and the FBI for choosing to ignore Clinton's intentional miscreance about using secret, unauthorized email servers..... and then crying like babies when Comey re-opened the same toothless, pro forma investigation with the same recommendation not to bring her lying, lawbreaking @ss to court. And THEN crying about any so-called "news" entity DARING to give even 5 seconds worth of coverage to that second sham investigation. What is so ironic is that those very same "news" entities had been Clinton's unabashed (and totally unprofessional) cheer leaders. Sorry, Clinton and DNC-- you can't have it both ways.

 

That's a short list that democrats and Clinton supporters aggressively stuck their collective head in the sand about. No one will ever convince me she's different enough from Trump to make any real difference. (George Wallace had a famous saying about the 2 major political parties: There ain't a dime's worth of difference between the two.) Regardless, the arrogant and stupid party assclowns have the next 4 years to keep lying to themselves that: it was Russia's fault; it was Vladimir Putin's fault; it was Julian Assange's fault; it was Bernie Sanders's fault; it was his supporters ("the dirty f*ckin' hippies") fault; it was the fault of people like myself... who chose to vote not out of fear against someone, but voted *FOR* someone we truly liked and wanted to win, no matter that candidate's chances of winning.... for choosing to vote conscience and principle instead of party and personality. One thing's for damn sure-- they will never, ever, ever allow themselves to think that the reasons they lost the election lie squarely with whom they see in the mirror. (That's assuming any of them can see their reflection in the mirror since they have no soul.)

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

Hillary was no panacea (most unfortunately) when it comes to protecting privacy. I fully expected her to try to help Big Media and Big Money crack down on internet freedom. But there comes a time when you have to chose the lesser of two evils and she was clearly the much lesser evil.

Jerry Garcia had a saying (and I'm paraphrasing here, but it's close to the actual quote): When you make a choice between the lesser of 2 evils, you're still choosing evil.

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

Well, itguy, obviously you live in the Republican bubble. Would you care to provide any evidence of the rigging you claim the Dems did? Or are you just parroting Trump's made-up BS?

 

ITGuy can correct me if I'm wrong but the rigging I think he's talking about is what the DNC was doing behind the scenes to work against Sanders and do what they could to tip the scales in favor of their chosen skank. Kepler452_b, perhaps you chose to cover your eyes and ears to the emails Assange released proving what the Sanders supporters already knew was happening. Maybe I missed it, but I never saw anyone, anywhere, directly address the damning content in those emails. But I sure did see a lot of "chicken-with-its-head-cut-off" panic from the Clinton campaign to throw up a pathetic smoke screen that it was proof of Russian meddling (laughable) in a desperate attempt to divert attention from what was in the emails. And C(linton) N(ews) N(etwork) and MSH(illary)R(odham)C(linton) happily played right along with the sham.

 

Clinton surely paid a sh*tload of money for such obviously bumbling, amateurish campaign strategy and advice, so she must be wondering now if she got anywhere close to her money's worth.

[LZ1 673]

I think you're biased towards Democracy and living on the assumption that Democracy is automatically the best or most desirable form of government. This is a big mistake in my view, but it's not unexpected. It's a little funny really, in that it seems that people who hold views similar to yours (respectfully), desire open-mindedness (no sexism, bigotry, racism, anti-abortion, etc.), yet instantly turn away anyone with a different mindset or approach. Say someone votes for Trump (or even that Brexit thing), it seems there's a tendency to reduce them to being racists and bigots (of course, some are). Similarly, those who don't subscribe to your notion of Democracy, are repressive fascist regimes. I wonder if you think this is wrong or not. Because the fact remains that both Russia and China have been doing pretty well for themselves. Especially China, in virtually all metrics besides internet-freedom and pollution(although this is improving). Yet you apparently don't care about this, as long as they're not Democratic. I think that's strange, respectfully. Because if you go to China, you may find that China is arguably more Capitalist and free in many ways, compared to the US.

Yes, I am proud to be "biased" in favor of democracy and "biased" against totalitarian regimes like those in Russia and China (and by the way hating totalitarian regimes is not the equivalent of hating the unfortunate people that have to live under them...quite the opposite). Apparently you think those regimes are nice alternatives. If I have that wrong, LZ1, please tell me what form of government you're biased in favor of.

 

Regarding Brexit you've narrow-mindedly pre-assigned me to the anti-Brexit camp. In fact I was in favor of it.

 

As for my notion of Democracy, it involves actually having a democracy.

 

China is absolutely captialist, though they continue the double-speak hypocrisy of calling themselves a Communist state...laughable if it weren't so pathetically dishonest and transparent. Oh yes, they are doing very well for themselves on the backs of their poor peasants. Soon they will be well enough off to afford a military big enough to seize the territory of their less powerful neighbors (excepting Tibet whose territory they already seized). China is an intolerant severely oppressive single-party state that suppresses, jails, or kills anyone that publicly opposes it's leadership clique. That combination is the very definition of fascism. If you lived in China we wouldn't be having this conversation because you wouldn't be allowed to access foreign sites where people can openly criticize oppressive regimes.

I can see why you would like to be biased like so and I can respect that. But I don't think you should be decidedly "proud" of it, seeing as it's exactly those kinds of bias which lead to misunderstanding and a clouding of judgement. Judgement being pretty important, if you're at all interested in approaching any sort of truthful view towards reality. After all, isn't that one of the major reasons the Democrats lost? They assumed that as long as they kept talking about women's, LGBTQ, black and minorities rights, everything would be okay, because "who wouldn't support X, Y, Z principles like these?" They even went as far as assuming that because Hillary was a white woman and supported women's rights, white women in the US would also automatically support for her. They held onto this belief in a sort of "duhhh" no-brainer way. Yet apparently some 50% of white women voted for Trump. So this pride you have, is the same sort of pride that blinded people similar to you to reality: that you can't predict what people will vote on, just based on their demographics and your principles and that while those principles are important, they probably take a back seat anyhow, compared to the prospect of losing one's job. So as the saying goes "Pride goeth before a fall". Fall the Democrats did.

 

Also, China for one isn't totalitarian. Your view is wrong - again, respectfully . It's authoritarian and you shouldn't mix these up. North Korea is what you'd call totalitarian, as the NK government has complete control over everything apparently. The Chinese does not. Chinese people are free to talk about whatever they want; especially in private. The Chinese government has created economic zones that enjoy special freedoms; such as Shanghai. Thus they're not controlled by the government. They're called Free Trade Zones. It's also possible for Chinese professors at universities to discuss various otherwise taboo social issues. Not to mention Chinese people can travel whenever they want, quit their jobs whenever they want, marry who they want and so forth. Your aforementioned bias comes back to bite you here, as I alluded to previously. You even go so far as to say that everyone living in China and Russia are unfortunate. Thus what started as an innocent bias, has then grown into a full-on misconception and that is dangerous in itself. But it's even more dangerous when politicians like HC give force to such biases, because you'll thus be more likely to believe in her. Ultimately, this could then lead to you feeling a war is justified, if one broke out. Because you'd think "well, China IS evil, so it makes sense we're fighting them". So I urge you to re-asses.

 

I think Democracy is fine. But it has to be *real* and not fake. I like to use Switzerland as an example. They have a pretty sweet system of Direct Democracy. They even have guns. Yet without the murder rates of the US. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't assume Democracy, in any form, is automatically better than other forms of governance, such as the Chinese form. I doubt Democracy would've been suitable for China for instance, because when your country lay in virtual ruins, as China did in 1978, it would be quite problematic for government (and thus plans) to change every 4 or 8 years, like in the US. Instead, China enjoys a massive advantage: it can plan decades ahead and follow that plan stringently. If those plans are prudent and smart, the country will rapidly improve. Which is exactly what it has done. Also, I don't think China calls itself Communist. It's just they haven't changed the name of the Communist Party haha. I think the hypocrisy, with all due respect of course, is palpable. You actively "worry" about a militarily strong China and how it'll "seize the territory" of its neighbors, when that's exactly what the US has been doing for decades: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and slices of many countries around the world, in the form of military bases. Yet as previously stated, China hasn't been in a war for 30 years and yet, for some reason, you automatically think you know what the Chinese will do - presumably just because they're not Democratic. You say the Chinese will just kill anyone disagrees - that may be so. Yet that's also exactly what the US government has been doing abroad; didn't you notice the drone campaigns?

 

I didn't mean to assign you to any camp. I meant to make a comparison of how it's possible, on both sides of the Atlantic, to assume that people who vote a certain way (such as Leave), are also automatically a certain kind of person (racist, bigot, etc.).

 

You also conveniently ignored my last paragraph with the links to US crimes. Maybe you couldn't be bothered to say anything about it or maybe it left you speechless, I don't know. But I can't help but feel that you're really representing the Democrats very well: ignoring the real issues, in favor of talking about high-minded ideals such as Democracy and Women's rights. Which, while definitely important, cannot make up 90% of the argument, by neglecting practical realities . I think this is very important actually. Since if you think about it, what reasons does the US government traditionally use to justify war? "Freedom", "Democracy", "Human-rights". Then people who are less intelligent and aware than yourself, instantly do a volte-face from being against war and conflict to being fine with them. Because hey, it's for "freedom" and "women's rights" in those Middle-Eastern dictatorships, right? Yet the practical reality is completely ignored and brushed aside, because it's presumed that these "higher ideals" justify the means; even when they don't. It's the sort of mindset that makes people think that the destruction of civil society, like in Iraq, is acceptable, because now the women are "free" from the male patriarchy and state oppression. Even when it really just means starvation and even more severe kinds of abuse, such as those by all the crazies like ISIS or the Taliban now being let loose. So I urge you to consider both the practical realities and realities that the other side face too; whilst not forgetting your cherished beliefs in freedom, democracy and so on, of course. Just don't be fooled .

[LZ1 673]

Well, itguy, obviously you live in the Republican bubble. Would you care to provide any evidence of the rigging you claim the Dems did? Or are you just parroting Trump's made-up BS?

 

ITGuy can correct me if I'm wrong but the rigging I think he's talking about is what the DNC was doing behind the scenes to work against Sanders and do what they could to tip the scales in favor of their chosen skank. Kepler452_b, perhaps you chose to cover your eyes and ears to the emails Assange released proving what the Sanders supporters already knew was happening. Maybe I missed it, but I never saw anyone, anywhere, directly address the damning content in those emails. But I sure did see a lot of "chicken-with-its-head-cut-off" panic from the Clinton campaign to throw up a pathetic smoke screen that it was proof of Russian meddling (laughable) in a desperate attempt to divert attention from what was in the emails. And C(linton) N(ews) N(etwork) and MSH(illary)R(odham)C(linton) happily played right along with the sham.

 

Clinton surely paid a sh*tload of money for such obviously bumbling, amateurish campaign strategy and advice, so she must be wondering now if she got anywhere close to her money's worth.

Hi nice to meet you. Some well-written posts .

 

Clinton supporters are still protesting, so I'm tempted to think something must've worked. I mean, if your supporters are still campaigning after you ended your own campaign, then something must've been done right, haha. I remember prior to Nov 8 how it was questioned whether Trump would be able to accept the election result. The irony.

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

Thank you, LZ1. Nice to meet you as well. You have some well thought out and written posts yourself.

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

A post-election autopsy.

 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/366763-trump-clinton-supporters-election-won/

[LZ1 673]

A post-election autopsy.

 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/366763-trump-clinton-supporters-election-won/

That was a good read, thank you.

 

It brought up many of the points I brought against Kepler as well - the notion that it's excellent to have ideals such as his, but that it should be tempered with:

 

1. Paying attention to practical matters and reality on the ground. Example: Do poor, uneducated white men have legitimate gripes with the system and thus a good reason to vote Trump?
2. An ability to view not just one side of an issue or opinion, but to evaluate both, in an attempt to arrive at as truthful a perception of reality as possible. Example: Why does China act how it acts, in the SCS? Are drone strikes always good, even if said to be brought against terrorists?

If those two could be accomplished, then it makes for a good combination of having sound values such as being against racism and various kinds of bigotry, but without being blinded by those same values, in a way that makes one open to being manipulated or otherwise unable to see things for what they are or aren't.

[Ekō 3]

I voted for Sanders in the primaries and I still think he would've been a far better option than these two airheads. But alas.

 

I rather have a "facist" than a crooked president. Atleast trump say's what he thinks. #MAGA

 

And this is from last week but it's blatantly untrue. We can see from multiple interviews that Trump is more inclined to say what people want to hear than what he truly believes. He'll take multiple stances on different issues over several days... he's constantly contradicting himself.

[OmniNegro 155]

I voted for Sanders in the primaries and I still think he would've been a far better option than these two airheads. But alas.

 

I rather have a "facist" than a crooked president. Atleast trump say's what he thinks. #MAGA

 

And this is from last week but it's blatantly untrue. We can see from multiple interviews that Trump is more inclined to say what people want to hear than what he truly believes. He'll take multiple stances on different issues over several days... he's constantly contradicting himself.

Do you truly think any politician does any different? They all do this. Every last one. In all parts of the world.

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

A little something for the dummies crying about how the mainstream media stacked the deck totally against $hillary.

 

http://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-media-recap-who-colluded-with-the-clinton-campaign/amp/

[LZ1 673]

A little something for the dummies crying about how the mainstream media stacked the deck totally against $hillary.

 

http://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-media-recap-who-colluded-with-the-clinton-campaign/amp/

Please don't call other people dummies. We all have different opinions, but they're harder to change if insulted. Thank you for the link otherwise.

 

Sent to you from me with datalove

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

The hacktivist group Anonymous has a slogan: "We do not forgive. We do not forget." No offense to you at all, LZ1, but I'm not in a forgiving mood. The democratic party establishment is too inbred... too entrenched... in too deep with the donor class. I could go on but I'll stop there. The point is that I am SICK of reading about the wailing about what happened when they have only themselves to blame. But look-- it's okay. As long as the party elite continue to stay in their groupthink bubble inside the D.C. beltway and continue to demean and marginalize the progressive base... then they will continue to remain in the minority. The Clinton mafia and the elite, establishment bureaucracy got exactly what they deserve on Nov. 8th. And, yes-- I am thoroughly enjoying the schadenfreude.

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

I urge the reader to pay especially close attention to the last paragraph of the article. It just further strengthens my conviction that nothing will change; they obviously prefer permanent self exile in the political wilderness.

 

http://observer.com/2016/11/obama-admin-wants-clinton-surrogate-as-new-dnc-chair/amp/

[pi13459 1]

Speaking of China, I was considering extended travel there. It's one of the reasons I signed-up to AirVPN, because Air had the rare capacity to circumvent the Great Firewall. Does anyone know if Air is still able to do that, and, technically, why can't the Chinese prevent Air from accessing the free internet from inside China?

I am in China now and Air works best if you use SSL tunnel protocol - look under preferences (on windows and linux). Linux and windows work the best by far. Android is a little different and more buggy, but still usable. I'm no expert, just figuring things out as I go along. If anyone can add to this, please do.