U.S. Electile Dysfunction 2016

[ewmayer]

Bergdahl lawyer slams candidate Trump over 'traitor' comments | Reuters

More free PR for da Trumpsta! The really interesting thing, especially if the lowball estimates of his true wealth are accurate, is that he can run his campaign much more cheaply than any other non-hopeless-case candidate because all the free PR his well-calculated eyebrow-raising utterances generates means he'll need far fewer ad buys to 'stay visible'. I'm reminded of another genius at self-promotion, Muhammad Ali, who based a lot of his public antics on those he had seen from a flamboyant pro wrestler of his youth named Gorgeous George. As Ali later admitted, it was all calculated to 'put butts in the seats,' and succeeded brilliantly. Analogously, Trump's opponents and detractors really do need to watch more pro wrasslin to see how it's done, and not keep falling for the bait.

[firejuggler]

What about Deez Nuts?

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

What about Deez Nuts?

We'll see in another 20 years when he actually meets the minimum-age requirement.

[Spherical Cow]

An article dated the 19th, but just ran across it, about how Google search rankings could be used to skew voting preferences. I'll have to track down the PNAS article to get more details; not sure what to think. Kind of scary if that's all it takes to manipulate people.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...l#.VdqFkflVhBe

Norm

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Spherical Cow

An article dated the 19th, but just ran across it, about how Google search rankings could be used to skew voting preferences. I'll have to track down the PNAS article to get more details; not sure what to think. Kind of scary if that's all it takes to manipulate people.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...l#.VdqFkflVhBe

Norm

I think it's always been the case that most so-called "democracies" have their major elections decided by a few powerful people, perhaps just one person, who control the media. TV and newspapers used to be the main channels for manipulating voters, but these days whoever controls electronic media giants like Google will decide who wins an election.

I suppose the 2000 US Presidential election was an exception. On that occasion it was the Secretary of State for Florida who succeeded in deciding who should win the Presidency.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

I suppose the 2000 US Presidential election was an exception. On that occasion it was the Secretary of State for Florida who succeeded in deciding who should win the Presidency.

And the then-governor of Florida was related to one of the 2 candidates how?

[kladner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E http://www.mersenneforum.org/images/...s/viewpost.gif
I suppose the 2000 US Presidential election was an exception. On that occasion it was the Secretary of State for Florida who succeeded in deciding who should win the Presidency.

And the then-governor of Florida was related to one of the 2 candidates how?

Of course, the question is rhetorical.

However, the fact remains that the Harris creature might not have succeeded if five voters in black robes had not interrupted a count which was legal under applicable Florida law. Also, let us not forget the "pinstripe riot" staged by Republican operatives to disrupt the recount.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by kladner

Of course, the question is rhetorical.

However, the fact remains that the Harris creature might not have succeeded if five voters in black robes had not interrupted a count which was legal under applicable Florida law. Also, let us not forget the "pinstripe riot" staged by Republican operatives to disrupt the recount.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the...count-of-2000/

And yet, Bush still would have won had the recount gone forward.

Most importantly, had the Democrats not run the worst campaign in a half century they would have won. (only topped by the Democrats next presidential campaign four years later.)

You could argue that world famous legal hypocrite Justice Scalia once again threw State's Rights (and strict Constitutionalism and Judicial review) to the wind when it suited his conservative political agenda, and I would completely agree.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by chappy

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the...count-of-2000/

And yet, Bush still would have won had the recount gone forward.

You neglected to include the qualifier "probably," which litters the article you linked. More importantly, you fail to mention the crucial fact that the rosters of eligible voters were gerrymandered for Bush to begin with. Key line there in re. the election appointment in question: "Florida undertook a similar purge of voter rolls in 2000."

And I haven't even touched the persistent rumors re. the Diebold voting machines, which make stealing modern elections as easy as HFT algos/hardware in the stock markets make it to steal hoi polloi's money.

But a funny thing has happened to my mind-set since then: I no longer give a rat's patootie about such stuff, since it has become eminently clear to me that:

[1] The U.S. in in no way, shape or form the advertised 'representative-democratic republic' (and I see that former President Carter recently publicly stated similar sentiments);

[2] It is Big Money, Big Media and the NatSec Deep State, not "the people", who determine the major-party nominees for the Presidency, and the same is increasingly the case for lower offices (Congress, governorships, etc.). Re. the Deep State, before anyone claims this to be in the realm of tinfoil-hattery, here is a link to a 2014 Boston Globe Review of an excellent recent book on this subject; and here is a link to a PDF version of the book in question freely available online at the Harvard National Security Journal website;

[3] There is by now so little difference in the actual policies carried out by members of the 2 major parties that it simply doesn't matter whether the Red Team or the Blue Team wins. Obama's actual policies have been just as warmongerish and Big Money-beholden as those of his predecessor, and similarly both Hillary and Jeb! are completely corrupted by lust for money and power. The only 2 candidates who are not (yet) complete puppets of the above interests are Sanders on the D side and Trump on the R side. Trump may be a blowhardish egomaniac who says some pretty 'out there' things, but in terms of actually threatening to start wars or resume the Cold War in deadly earnest, he scares me less than any of the other Repugnican creeps. Which is why neither Sanders nor Trump can be allowed to get their respective party's nomination, unless he is first co-opted by the Dark Side, perhaps by way of a late-night 'this is all the secret dirt we have, or can manufacture, on you' talking-to by some scary folks in black hats and black SUVs;

[4] The Rule of Law applies only to the little people, by way of keeping them from getting uppity.

[kladner]

It is far too easy - and all too human - to make sweeping judgements about people based solely on limited experience and unlimited assumptions. But it is important to work past that genetically encoded human defect for any number of reasons, not the least of which are that: (1) knowledge is power, and (2) stereotyping is not. Please join me below the fold for an exclusive and detailed look at the surprising demographics of the fast-rising Neo-Confederate movement of North Carolina.

.

[only_human]

Party That Mocked President’s Lack of Experience Favors One with No Experience Whatsoever
This is the published in the New Yorker. Google's news aggregator describes the site/article thusly:

"The New Yorker (satire) - ‎2 hours ago"

That the New Yorker is satire is actually news to me - but this portion definitely corresponds with that characterization:

As for the former Hewlett-Packard C.E.O. Carly Fiorina, Priebus said that the excitement her résumé is generating among the Republican faithful is totally understandable. “Like a lot of Republicans, I’d love to see Carly take on ISIS,” he said. “She’s shown she can destroy a large organization.”